Liberal Race Baiters Grow Quiet As Zimmer's Black Slave Roots Revealed

Wow!  Notice how now all those agitators on the left are quieting down on the now that it's come out that George Zimmerman's great grandfather was a Peruvian Black, the descendent of slaves!

I mean, what message does Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have left?   Both Trayvon and Zimmerman are the decedents of African slaves.

Oh, but they were so sure it was white on black when they started, as was the press.  And their agitation has led to at least one confirmed genuine hate crime in Chicago on a white man who was randomly chosen by a black man because of the supposed injustice of Trayvon Martin.

So the only racism has been that ginned up by the leftist race baiters.

Wrong on Zimmerman, wrong on all most else.

Does George Zimmerman Have Black African Slave Roots?

Reuters reports that George Zimmerman's great grandfather was black,

“He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.”

Is it possible that Zimmerman's black great grandfather was the descendant of African slaves in South America?

Afro Peruvians are citizens of Peru mostly descended from African slaves who were brought to the Western hemisphere with the arrival of the conquistadors towards the end of the slave trade.    (Wikipedia)

If so, then Zimmerman has more in common with American blacks than Obama, who has no slave heritage, his father being a Kenyan national from East Africa.

Does Zimmerman Have More in Common with American Blacks than Obama?

Reuters reports now about Zimmerman,

“He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.”

Is it possible that this great grandfather was the descendant of  African slaves in South America?  If so, then it's ironic, but George Zimmerman shares more heritage with American blacks than Barack Obama!

Obama's father was a Kenyan national, from East Africa, but American slaves were from West Africa.  No slavery in Obama's roots.  But Zimmerman might just have black African slaves in his heritage!

If Jimmy Carter Had a Son He'd Look Like Barack Obama

Since the President has introduced the politics of race into the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman case,  we'd like to add that if Jimmy Carter had a son he'd look like Barack Obama.  Or at least he'd preside like Barack Obama.

Florida's Stand Your Ground Law - I Dare You To Actually Read It (84 words long)

You would think that Florida's Stand Your Group provision in the law was some wacked out thing.  But here is it below.  Take a second to read it.  I'll wait.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force IF he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This is straight forward common sense. 

It basically says if you are somewhere where you have a right to be, not breaking the law, and someone attacks you AND you believe your only option to escape death or great bodily harm is to return force with force, then you have the right to do so. That is, if your perception is that trying to retreat would jeopardize you or someone else, then you may instead use force to defend your self without retreating.

Do you not want that right? Imagine you're sitting somewhere in public. Suddenly someone attacks you violently and you grab a stick and hit them back because you are afraid for your life. Without stand your ground YOU would be guilty of assault because you didn't first try to run like a pansy, exposing your back. That's all stand your ground is.

Does stand your ground even apply to Geroge Zimmerman's case? It's questionable.  Zimmerman was pinned down when he was being severely beaten.  An eye witness confirms that.  He could not retreat.  It wasn't an option.   Once attacked with deadly force, the head pounding, Zimmerman had no chance to run, therefore stand your ground does not even apply.  Plain old self-defense applies.

The attack on Zimmerman was, by his account, in two stages.  First, was an initial blow to the nose.  Had Zimmerman shot at that point then his only hope would be "stand your ground."  But the second stage of the attack was for Zimmerman to be pinned down and having his head pounded on the concrete, as the eyewitness confirms.  At this point stand your ground was irrelevant.

George Zimmerman after his encounter with Treyvon Martin

Why Trayvon's Girlfriends' Phone Call Might Clear Zimmerman

The girlfriend's cell call has recently become an interesting issue. It's possible that the prosecution avoided the Grand Jury because they did not want DeeDee, the friend, on the stand. And for good reason.  The defense would have a field day with her testimony.

Here is the content of the call according to her (as reported by CNN):

"Well, Kyra, she then heard Trayvon Martin say to someone, "Why are you following me?"

That person then said to Trayvon Martin, "Who are you? Why are you here? What is your name?"

--Stop right there. If this is accurate, then Zimmerman is asking a perfectly logical question and is not breaking any laws. And if he is in question mode, does it make sense he would suddenly rush up and push a person much taller than himself, esp. when he knows the cops are on the way? No! And if you think Zimmerman was a nut just out to shoot somebody, why would he get into a shoving match with someone taller than himself?  Why not just pull out his pistol? The CNN report continues:

"At that point at about 7:16 p.m., she says that the phone call dropped, that she felt that someone had pushed or tackled Trayvon and, at that point, the phone call dropped."

---This is DeeDee's speculation. She cannot possibly know on a phone call who pushed whom from what she describes.   It could just as well have been the other way, with Trayvon suddenly lunging at Zimmerman, and that in fact makes more sense.  Again, if Zimmerman was the aggressor why not pull out his gun? Why shove a man 4 inches taller than yourself?   And suddenly rushing up and shoving doesn't go with the line of questions Zimmerman asked, which were logical and within his right to ask.

These are the type of questions that would be put to her by the defense.  The DA knows this and that's why the call is alluded to in general terms in the State's affidavit of probable cause.  Put DeeDee on the stand in front of a grand jury and there's no way you get 2nd degree murder charges.  But put it in an affidavit of probable cause and there's no cross examination.

But the call could actually help clear Zimmerman.   Look at the dialogue of the call on the face of it:

   Trayvon:  "Why are you following me?"
   Zimmerman:  "Who are you?  Why are you here?  What is your name?"

These questions, if accurate, actually show Zimmerman was not overly aggressive.  And in fact, this came out already just in the bond hearing.  Zimmerman's attorney questioned the chief investigator, Dale Gilbreath.

The AP reports that under questioning "Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin."  So even the investigators can make nothing out of the phone call.  It could cut either way.

Guitarwarp's personal guess is that Trayvon was a bit like the Swede who came to the Blue Hotel in Nebraska in Stephen Crane's short story, The Blue Hotel, and Zimmerman was like one of the other characters in that insightful story about conflict and social responsibility. 

If Obama Had a Son He'd Look Like George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman looks like Obama.  More than Trayvon does.   It's strange, but looking at the video of George Zimmerman in his bond hearing he looks a lot more like President Obama than Trayvon Martin did.

George Zimmerman - looks like Obama

And does this man to the left look white?  Not that it should matter, but the race mongers have introduced it.  Maybe the quote should go, "If I had a son he'd look like George Zimmerman."

George Zimmerman looks like Obama!  And we find out now, for good reason:  his great grandfather was black!

Reuters says, “He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.”

The fact is, our justice system shouldn't look at race.  But pundits and activists have lept to conclusions calling for Zimmerman's conviction, and profiling this as "white" hate crime against black before ever getting the facts.

So, if you're going to look at race in this case, take a second look! Zimmerman looks like Obama. He certainly does not look like a white man in the photo above.  But the race baiters don't care.

Let the courts do their thing.

One more thought: if Zimmerman's great grandfather was a Peruvian Black does that mean his ancestors were slaves?  If so, Zimmerman has more in common with American blacks than Obama!  






UPDATE Dec. 2012
Here's what Zimmerman looked like the night of the altercation

Enviromentalism the Religion of the Left

The most religious people I know are liberals who claim to be agnostic.

The new religion is environmentalism.  It has all the elements of classic, superstitious religion.  They worship "planet earth," no amount of data, even from respected climate scientists are top universities, can thwart their faith in man-made global warming.  Point out the fact that the most draconian measures suggested to stop man made CO2 production would only reduce a tiny fraction of output and that it in itself is a tiny fraction of the total new CO2 in the atmosphere each year, and what do you get?  Denier!  Unscientific!

Yes, they actually use the religious term "denier."  You are denying the faith. 

Carbon is the new Satan.  Notice that in common talk it's not even CO2 anymore, but just shorthand carbon.  "Carbon" is catchy.  Carbon credits.  Carbon emissions.  Carbon footprint.

More informed leftists will be quick to say, "Oh, well, but we mean CO2, everyone knows that," and yet they perpetuate the wildly inaccurate use of the word "carbon" because innately they know it more rhetorical force and makes a better bogey man in the minds of the faithful masses.

All you need to do to get grant money or to gain immediate sympathy for your foolish decision to by a Chevy Volt is to say, "I'm doing it to reduce my carbon footprint," and all challenges are off.  End of discussion.  It's a personal decision.  

Junk scientists are the evangelists of the day, along with political hay makers and corporate inside trackers who see a gold mine in any new forced regulations.  If one of these enviro evangelists says man is causing global warming via evil carbon, then by golly, the leftist faithful are convinced and it is "received" science, or "settled" science.  "Settled science," is of course code word for anything that can't really be demonstrated or proven by the scientific method.

No one talks about the laws of heredity or the laws of gravitational attraction as "settled science" because anyone, anywhere, anytime can verify those results by experimentation.  That's science.

But the left likes to blur the line between science and theory, or just plain philosophy, whenever it is convenient.  And to bolster their "faith" they bully into submission any dissenters.  "Well, all these scientists voted and agree so it must be true."

Does this sound familiar?  Take away 400 years and you have Galileo being put on trial.  And by whom?  By the same scientists of his day who had "received" Ptolemy's cosmology as settled fact.  The debate in Galileo's day was that the heliocentric view didn't yet have positive demonstration of it's truth.  Of course later, when Galileo defended his Two World Views, it was taken as an attack on Pope Urban VIII at a time of great upheaval in Europe and alienated those who had been sympathetic. But even the Inquistional conclusions, in the Vatican archives that Napoleon obtained, shows that the theologians of the Inquisition, like Galileo himself were chiefly concerned that scientific demonstration be given, not mere conclusions or evidence in favor, yet lacking proof.  William E. Caroll writes (Pastoral Review, April 2012),

When we speak of Galileo’s defence of the thesis that the Earth moves, we must be especially careful to distinguish between arguments in favour of a position, and arguments which prove a position to be true. In fact, Galileo and the theologians of the Inquisition accepted the prevailing Aristotelian ideal of scientific demonstration which required that science be sure and certain knowledge in terms of necessary causes, not the conclusions of hypothetical or probabilistic reasoning which today we tend to accept as science.

And in fact, even in Galileo's day the church was open to what could be scientifically demonstrated:

Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, the learned Jesuit theologian and member of the Inquisition, told Galileo that if there were a true demonstration for the motion of the Earth then the Church would have to abandon its traditional reading of those passages in the Bible which appeared to be contrary.

The left makes prophesies, none of which ever need come true, because they will one day, they are certain.  Just keep waiting and looking to the east, or west, or wherever. 

Of course, the left says, with the environment the stakes are too high to put off doing something now by being bothered with scientific demonstrations of man made global warming, or even what the effects might be. 

And of course, this is not science at all.  And this is why groups like the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio this year are proposing more than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from "rich countries to poorer ones" in the name of fostering a "green infrastructure."

How will the UN do this?  By new "carbon taxes for industrialized countries" to transfer the wealth.  It's socialism pure and simple, but on a global scale.

Socialism has always needed a vague bogey man, one you can't ever get your hands on--because then it could be solved, and in the solving would become useless to them.

But this is the way of the left

New Blogger Interface a Joke??

Did Google release the new "improved" Blogger interface on April 1?  I don't recall, but one suspects this is the case.

How is it an improvement to have now a few scattered, ambiguous, unlabeled icons versus a simple list of the most common blogger commands (new post, edit, etc.)?

And why the "icon only" interface?  Can Google's bloggers not read?  Ambiguous icons

Switching back to the old and more logical layout.

Do Clergy Pay Lower Taxes than Regular People?

There is a myth that clergy pay a lower tax rate, when in fact in total tax (SE tax + income tax) often they pay far higher taxes than the typical W2 wage earner.  How is this so?  Because they are considered "self-employed" by the IRS and thus pay a whopping 15.3% off their gross income (before adjustments and exemptions) AND regular income tax.  Effectively this means they pay more in total tax. 

The regular wage earner pays half (or in 2011 less than half) of Social Security (the equivalent of "self-employment tax") and the employer pays the rest.

Obviously this is a bad situation, so much so that Congress began to allow clergy to exclude the lower of fair market value of their home or actual expenses for housing from regular income tax (but not from self-employment tax, that still comes off the top).

So a minister earning $50,000 pays $6141 in SE tax (13.3%, down from 15.3 last tax year) on that income PLUS any regular income tax.  If a minister spent $15,000 total on housing, he would still pay regular income tax on $35,000 at the going rate.  That would be about an additional $2871, for a total of $9012, or an effective total tax rate of 18% tax on just $50,000 income.  That's a dead heat with a regular income earner ($9081).

NOW let's add a non-working spouse and 2 dependents to the above:

Regular Tax payers total tax:  $5544 (includes $2850 FICA + Medicare)

Clergy total tax:  $6649 (includes $6164 SE tax)

A pastor earning $50k with a wife and two kids pays $1105 more in taxes than a regular W2 tax payer!  Bottom line is most clergy would love to be treated are regular tax payers!

Obama Lying Again, This Time About His Secretary's Tax Rate. TurboTax Debunks Him

Obama came out today to say that his effective tax rate (20.5%) was lower than his secretary's, who earns 95,000 while he reported income of $789,674.

But this doesn't add up.  Let's let TurboTax do the honest work he can't seem to do.

Comparing apples to apples she would pay only 13.4% if her family situation and her charitable giving matched Obama's.  Read on to see TurboTax outcomes.

Worst Case Scenario:
I just plugged in a flat $95,000 on her W-2 into TurboTax Deluxe 2011 and to compare apples to apples, had her giving 21% to charity like Obama, otherwise the comparison is invalid.  Assuming she is single, has no mortgage, no dependents,  and just takes the standard deduction but with 21% to charity, her total tax is $19,246--which includes 4.2% for FICA and 1.45% for Medicare tax.

That's  a rate of just 19.2% which is about 1.3% lower than Mr. Obama's effective rate.

He's lying!

His secretary achieved this lower rate without resorting to any investment income.  In a worst case scenario,  I plugged in straight earned income and gave her the least favorable tax situation (no write offs, no child credit, no credit for state or local taxes paid,  and no unearned income which is taxed at 15%) and she still came out paying just 19.2% according to TurboTax.

An even more fair comparison.  Let's make the comparison between Obama and his secretary even more fair by having her married with a non-working spouse and two kids to support, just like Obama:
Now she pays just $8191 in income tax for a total tax of $13,468 or an effective rate of just 13.4%!

Obama is a liar!

Typical Scenario:
Let's say she had two children, a mortgage and property taxes, like many taxpayers in her range.

• $15,000 mortgage interest in 2011
• $4000 property tax in 2011
• Two dependent children
• 21% to charity to match Obama
• Stay at home hubby with no income

Now her tax bill is just $10,618 according to TurboTax!  That's just 10.6% effective tax on a $95,000 income.

I'll say it again, Obama is a liar or his secretary needs a new accountant.

$95,000 is a strong household income.  But what about those "middle class" Obama is so concerned about?  What "share" is a $60,000 household paying?  Let's run the TurboTax numbers again.

Middle Income Scenario:
Let's say she has two children, a modest mortgage and property tax

• $10,000 mortgage interest in 2011
• $2500 property tax
• Two dependent children
• 21% to charity to match Obama
• Stay at home hubby with no income

Now her tax bill is just $5586 total tax!  That's just 5.5% effective rate!

OK, what dope is Obama (and the main stream press) smoking to buy his lies which are so easily debunked.

I encourage you to do it yourself online at TurboTax or the free Federal Tax site.  TurboTax doesn't lie.

Oh, and if Obama had his entire $789,674 as regular W2 income he would have paid at an effective rate of 24% total tax!  Go figure!

Liar in Chief.

Warren Buffett's Secretary Does Not Pay a Higher Tax Rate than Buffett

As much as President Obama would like to fool some of the people all the time on this, he is simply lying.  Here are the facts.

On investment income everyone in the US, everyone, pays %15.  Buffett's secretary pays 15%.  Buffett pays 15%.  Your mom and dad pay 15%.  Bill Gates pays 15%.  Obama pays 15%.

That's fair!

But Obama plays a shell game.  He deliberately takes the labels off various taxes, then with slight of hand mixes them before his dazed audiences of college kids.

Here's Obama's trick.  He knows Buffett is not drawing any regular income for himself.  That is, he is not cutting himself a paycheck out of his company.  Why not?  Because Buffett knows that regular pay is taxed on a progressive rate.  Low income people pay nothing or maybe 10%.  But high income people pay much, much more, around 30% on regular income.   So when Buffett wants money he goes to his long term investments and sells something and pays 15% on any gains.  Buffett is not stupid.  Why draw a regular salary when he doesn't need to and pay more?

But Obama drops the labels off the various taxes in his propaganda talks (that is what they are).  He claims, "Warren Buffett pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary."  But that simply is not true.

Buffett would pay 30% or more if he had regular income, and 15% on investement income.
Buffett's secretary would pay at best 15% on regular income, and 15% on gains.

Obama is a liar:

Buffett's "rate" is the same for investment gains as his secretaries and his "rate" is far higher on any regular income he would draw.

Casey Anthony’s lawyer: George Zimmerman’s a victim of prosecutor's ‘political prostitution’

Miami Herald Blog

Marc Caputo at 7:17 PM on Wednesday, Apr. 11

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/casey-anthonys-lawyer-george-zimmermans-a-victim-of-prosecutors-political-prostitution.html#storylink=cpy

Cheney Mason, the freewheeling criminal defense attorney who successfully defended tot mom Casey Anthony, is shaking his head over the second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The charge leveled by prosecutor Angela Corey is too severe and reeks of political calculus, Mason said.

“It’s political prostitution,” Mason said. “Now I don’t have all the facts – no one does – but you look at what we know of the case and it looks like the prosecutor bowed to other pressures.

“The fact is there is lots of racial bigotry in this case,” Mason said. “And a lot of it is coming from the side of Trayvon Martin’s family. I can understand why his family is upset. They lost a child. But they weren’t at the crime scene. None of us was.”
Mason said Corey is too zealous of a prosecutor.
"This is a person who wanted to put a 12-year-old boy as an adult for murder. It’s just too much,” Mason said.

To prove Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder, Corey will have to show Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” when he shot Trayvon.

“The only evidence we have now is what Zimmerman says and what an eyewitness says – that Trayvon was beating him,” Mason said. “Well, if that’s the case, this shouldn’t reach a jury. There’s just no evidence showing he acted with a depraved min. If Zimmerman was being beaten, it’s clearly a homicide. He had a right to carry his weapon. He had a right to confront a person who was walking around in a hoodie in the rain around dark when there had been crimes in the neighborhood.” One-time federal prosecutor, former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, suggested Corey might not stick with the second-degree murder charge through trial.
"This is an aggressive charge," he said. "And there are times when an aggressive charge gives more incentive for the defendant to seek a plea. The vast majority of cases don't go to trial and end in a plea."
Also, Coffey said, a jury could under some circumstances toss the second-degree murder charge and convict of a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.
But will it get to a jury?
Mason said there will be a hearing under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law – which expands the right to use deadly force --  and the charges could be dropped then by a judge. But, Mason said, “people are using Stand Your Ground to obfuscate the facts of this case. This comes down to the fundamentals of homicide. What’s the evidence? The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It’s not on George Zimmerman. And you can’t blame Stand Your Ground for this tragedy.”

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/casey-anthonys-lawyer-george-zimmermans-a-victim-of-prosecutors-political-prostitution.html#storylink=cpy

TurboTax Calls Obama a Liar Regarding Millionaires Not Paying Fair Share

Tired of Obama's lies to college co-eds about millionaires, such as his speech to the FAU students?

"It's just not fair that higher income Americans pay a lower rate than lower income Americans." 

Of course, TurboTax 2010 says this isn't the case at all.

Let's just plug the numbers into TurboTax and see what it says about Marty Millionaire who earns a straight $1,000,000 on his W-2 from a Florida based company.

(Full disclosure:  I am not a millionaire, but like 99% of people in the US would love to be one.)

Marty Millionaire earns exactly 1,000,000 on his W-2 wages.
He is married to Missy Millionaire (who is stay at home)
They have one child, Mike, aged 5
They are married and filing jointly

His total tax--even taking out 60,000 in itemized deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes on their home--is $298,976.
That is 29.8% effective rate of Federal Taxes on Millionaires!

Now let's take Marty Millionaire's secretary, who earns $50,000, married, husband stay at home, one child, and takes the Standard Deductions (which are 11,400) and a personal exemption of 10,950, so she only pays on 27,650.
Total Taxes?  Just $3314.  This is 6.6% effective tax rate on secretaries.

Obama is a liar!!!!

Of course the vast majority of people who earn a million or more do it by owning their own small business.  And those people pay not only income tax but also Self Employment Tax at double the rate of the wage earning paying FICA (social security tax).

Here's another factoid:  most millionaires in America (those with a liquid net worth of a million or more) got it the old fashioned way, they earned it and saved, saved, saved.  Many are senior adults who held "normal" jobs but planned and were frugal.  They avoided debt, didn't buy things they couldn't afford, and had goals.  Obama hates this!  They don't need the government.  They have a million or more in annuities or other investments and live off them.

Oh, and those millionaires who run a small business?  They create 90% of all US jobs!

Check our "How to Make A Million Dollars" on the How Stuff Works web site for a reality check.  Millionaires are not the Monopoly Man with his top hat.  That's the image Obama want sot create in your mind.  Some greedy guy who wins by everyone else losing.  But the vast majority of millionaires in America get there by creating things people want (jobs, products, services) and freely pay for with their own money.  Progressives, however, like to spend other people's money, and receive other people's money by legislative decree, not by honest work.

Obama Lies to FAU Students About Millionaires Getting "Special Treatment"

Barak Obama continues to spew outright lies about millionaires getting special tax breaks.  This simply is not true.  They use the same tax code as everyone else.  They get no more exemptions than anyone else, and in fact, get far fewer because many exemptions don't apply to high income taxpayers.

Here is the truth:  everyone in the US pays the exact same rate for gains on investments.  Mom and Pop pay the same tax rate if they sell an investment and make money as anyone else. Period.

Warren Buffet's secretary pays exactly the same rate as her billionaire boss if she sells a stock or mutual fund at a profit.

But there's more truth:  higher income earners actually pay far higher tax rates.  That's why the top 1% pay 35% of all income taxes in the US, while the bottom 47% pay nothing.  That's right, zero.

But Obama can go to a college campus and spew what everyone knows are outright lies and college freshmen eat it up because they are young and impressionable, and obviously have never bothered to read the Tax Code.

What's sad is that the main stream press has yet to question Mr. Obama on his fictions.

Black People Cannot Sing about Crispy Chicken, Apparently

Apparently our nation is in need of a new constitutional amendment forbidding African Americans from ever being video taped singing about chicken.  Mary J. Blige recorded a commercial for Burger King and the PC police jumped all over it.

Of course it was "crispy" chicken, not fried, and it was in a tortilla wrap.  But the Washington Post ignores that, and creates stereotyping where there was none in order to sell their rag to their leftist base, who also need racism to continue in order to have a reason to be.  Seriously folks, focus on real problems instead of inventing them.

Myth: Jesus Never Talked About Homosexuality

There are seven very clear passages in the Old and New Testaments that directly forbid homosexual practices.  But it is often claimed that Jesus himself never addressed the issue.  Proponents of gay lifestyles then use an argument from silence on Jesus' part to justify, and even overturn clear New Testament teaching against homosexuality.

But did Jesus really never say anything about gay marriage or homosexual practices?  And even if he didn't, would that in any way imply His approval of it?

What did Jesus say on sex and marriage?  We have a number of statements that are very direct. 

"...from the beginning it has not been this way.  I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery"  (Matt. 19:9)

The word "immorality" is a general term for any sexual misconduct.  Jesus and his audience are all Jewish and their context naturally, all boys required to attend Hebrew school,  was the Torah (the law of Moses), the prophets, and the "writings."  Together these are the Old Testament. Jesus made appeals from each of these, showing that he accepted them all as God's word.  Even in Matt. 19:8 above Jesus appealed to the beginning, which is a reference to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, the first married couple.

Given this context, and Jesus not making any hint that he was discarding the Scripture or modifying it, we must not discount what the Old Testament says about "immorality."  All sexual misconduct were included in that term, including homosexuality, bestiality, and incest.  In fact, in Matthew 19:8-10 if anything Jesus tightened up the laws and the standards on marriage, saying that the divorce certificate was not God's will or permission/blessing, but due to the hardness of man's heart.  

And also in this passage three times Jesus or his disciples describes marriage as between a man and a woman.  It is implied in His reference to "the beginning," as we said.  It is explicit in v. 9, and his disciples spell it out in v. 10.   If Jesus' intent were to overturn the prohibition on something this central to human life why remain silent? He in fact is explicit in the so-called "exception clause" for immorality being the one ground for divorcing someone.  And when the disciples follow up with their comment about marriage, if Jesus' intent were to open up marriage to same-sex partners and overturn the Law why not take that occasion?  His disciples knew the Old Testament law.  Jesus knew that was their context and framework for morality.  Silence clearly would be tacit support of the standard and in no way a door to something completely contrary to it.


Jesus didn't mention a lot of things.  He didn't mention bestiality, which was also forbidden in the Law of Moses.  Does that mean Jesus is in favor of it?  Jesus didn't mention child abuse.  Did He support it?   Jesus didn't mention incest.  Did He intend therefore to make it legal?  By the logic of the gay rights movement, and ill informed statements of people such as former President Jimmy Carter, one would think Jesus favored all these things.


But Jesus was only three years in ministry.  He didn't mention many specific practices  as his focus was on the mission He was called to.  Yet on many occasions He affirmed "the Law," quoted from it, appealed to it, and never excepted homosexuality or other such practices.


Quite the contrary, where there was a misunderstanding, or where on a few occasions a law was being superseded He explicitly taught on it.  He corrected ideas about the Sabbath, he stated that all foods were now clean, and as in Matt. 19 he corrected false conclusions people drew from the Law.  But never does He hint at softening what it says on sexual immorality as described in the Old Testament.

And we must not forget that John 1 teaches that Jesus was the creator!  And he created Adam and Eve.  Jesus was the Word, so, yes, He did speak very directly on gay marriage.  The "helper suitable" for Adam was a woman, not another man.

Of course we must also look at the disciples of Jesus to understand Jesus' intent.  These were the men closest to Him and taught by him.  And they are explicit on homosexuality.