rimrocker -- honestly, that seems like a conversation for another thread entirely. i don't doubt for one second that Christ would show love to everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike. i don't doubt that he actively does that today. believe me...i believe that BIG TIME! but he concluded many of his messages by saying, "go and sin no more." he told the man at the healing pool, after healing him, "stop sinning or something far worse than your physical ailments will happen to you." he did not say you can disregard the Old Testament, in fact he came and directly affirmed it. there other warnings against homosexuality in the New Testament which you may or may not be aware of. please don't misunderstand me, though. i'm not implying that somehow i'm better than someone who is homosexual...i'm not implying that God loves me more...and I'm not implying that my sin is any less offensive to God. the question is repentance...the "go and sin no more" thing. the sin i have actively embraced, in spite of that command, separates me from God in a big way. i'm thankful he is working to kill that in me.
I think several posters (in other threads) have had reasonable discussions about why they oppose gay marriage. Unfortunately, when people have tried to discuss their valid concerns, they are called bigoted and idiotic. Not exactly the best way to convert people to your beliefs, IMHO.
BTW, do not read my last post as a defence of TJ. I am just echoing MadMax's sentiments that some of the namecalling needs to be toned down.
it's very hard to have a discussion when you're labelled as an idiot or bigot because you disagree with someone.
I agree. Trader_Jorge tried to call me one a couple of pages ago, but I guess he didn't like my response, because he went off on another tangent. Max is right. If everyone goes around pointing fingers and calling each other bigots, then Bush and Rove have accomplished exactly what they want to do... not make the election about his record, but instead to have it about emotional wedge issues that fracture, confuse and polarize the electorate.
Once again, I never called you a bigot or an idiot when you disagreed with my views. We have disagreed on a number of subjects and to my recollection, I have never called you either a bigot or an idiot. I called t_j a bigot when he expressed a pretty blatantly bigoted opinion. If there are valid concerns about homosexual marriage or the amendment being pushed by the administration, I would welcome a discussion.
"I want a constitutional amendment outlawing astroturf and the designated hitter..." - Crash Davis Now that's something I could support.
LOL. Top 5 comedy of all time for me. But only because I love long, slow, deep, wet kisses that last three days.
I've criticized the use of the line "you're either with us or you're against us" many times, but I would freely use it when discussing that proposed amendment.
Max, I understand and respect your position on this, but WRT a few additional views you mentioned... 'Go and sin no more' - the gov should not create law based on religious belief, so this is a non-starter. Else, next thing you know, we could be living under Islamic Law. I.e., there are different religious beliefs and whether you and I believe in the Bible should mean absolutely nothing to the guy who lives next door. And FWIW, I know you won't agree with me here, but there is a lot in the Bible that does not sound like God's words to me. Whether it be mean-spirited passages or a cavalier attitude about taking a life (even one's own child), as examples. These sound like the words of men, and men from another time. I try to distinguish between the two, and the references to gays falls in the 'man's word' category for me. God is about love; I cannot believe that God cares a hoot about sexual orientation, but I know plenty of men who are intimidated by it.
Then you should vote Democrat in the upcoming elections. In Massachusetts 3 of the 4 judges who voted to allow gay marriage were Republican appointees, including the chief justice. If you don't like the activist judges that Republicans are appointing perhaps you should vote Democrat.
How about an amendment forcing everyone to get married to go along with an amendment banning divorce and adultery? Too much sinning going on in America.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/ President Waffler . . . Bush's announcement Tuesday, which the White House said followed a good deal of serious reflection, contradicts Bush's own statement four years ago that states should be left to "do what they want to do" regarding same-sex marriage. Asked repeatedly what had changed Bush's mind, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said only, "His views have always been well known on this very issue." It was during a CNN Republican primary debate that year in South Carolina that he was asked about gay marriage. Bush said he would "stand up and say I don't support gay marriage." CNN's Larry King asked, "If a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?" "The state can do what they want to do," Bush responded. . . . As governor of Texas, Bush opposed civil unions for same-sex couples. . . . But at a vice presidential debate in 2000, Cheney was asked, "Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?" Cheney responded, "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard." He added, "I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. ... (I) wrestle with the extent of which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into." . . .
speaking of waffling, the times this morning had an editorial suggesting this is a state's rights issue, just as kerry has. yet both were against the texas sodomy law struck down in the recent lawrence decision. why is the former issue one of "states rights" yet the latter isn't?
You're conflating two issues, possilby because you are just confused and don't have a full grasp of the legal issues, or possibly because you just want to unleash another low blow at the Times, John Kerry, etc. 1. The anti-sodomy statutes in Lawrence dealt with the application of a criminal statute within the context of the bill of rights,based on, among other things, the right to privacy, due process, etc under the 14th amendment. There are no "states rights" when it comes to denying civil rights protected under the 14th amendment. That sort of thing went out with Jim Crow. 2. By contrast, any attempt to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage in all states, even states that do not ratify the amendment, is a completely separate issue divorced from the protections of the 14th Amendment. Hence, the issue of states rights is a proper subject of inquiry. Two different statutes, two diffferent processes, accordingly, different modes of analyses are to be used.
WOW! Just like their decision! How about that? Hypocrite. Oh wait, it's not a decision at all. It's biological.
