Question about Bush

[Green Gaia]

Why does Bush and Co. think it's OK to call BGLT people unworthy of the same rights that heterosexual people have? OK, so I get it that their religion thinks homosexuals are sinful and immoral and we're all going to Hell, but isn't our government supposed to be secular? It doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are, they cannot impose them on everyone! And by not allowing BGLT people the same rights as heterosexuals because of Bush's religion, he is imposing his religion on the entire country. I don't understand how they can get away with this! I am so fed up trying to understand the thinking behind this, because to me it all points back to religious hatred and bigotry against non-heterosexual people and a few people trying to impose their will and beliefs on everyone. How is this happening in our free country? Someone please explain this to me...

 

[Jaymes]

I second that, Maize.. I'd like to know the anti-logic behind all that.

 

[Mister Emu]

I believe they are of the opinion that marriage is a privlige not a right.

 

[linwood]

I don't understand how they can get away with this! I am so fed up trying to understand the thinking behind this, because to me it all points back to religious hatred and bigotry against non-heterosexual people and a few people trying to impose their will and beliefs on everyone. How is this happening in our free country? Someone please explain this to me...

Maize,

They can`t get away with it and they won`t.
The only secular reasoning they have put forth is that gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage.
This argument is obvious bunk and has nothing to stand on so it will fall.
They cannot appeal to religion because the courts will crush it.

It won`t happen..don`t let them scare ya, just continue to fight against it.
Morality law and justice are on your side.

I believe they are of the opinion that marriage is a privlige not a right.

They would be wrong.
Marriage is a right not a privilege.
We don`t have constitutional privileges in this country..never have.

Even if it were a privilege their stance supports this privilege for one group of people to the detriment of another.

That wouldn`t stand either.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Why does Bush and Co. think it's OK to call BGLT people unworthy of the same rights that heterosexual people have? OK, so I get it that their religion thinks homosexuals are sinful and immoral and we're all going to Hell, but isn't our government supposed to be secular? It doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are, they cannot impose them on everyone! And by not allowing BGLT people the same rights as heterosexuals because of Bush's religion, he is imposing his religion on the entire country. I don't understand how they can get away with this! I am so fed up trying to understand the thinking behind this, because to me it all points back to religious hatred and bigotry against non-heterosexual people and a few people trying to impose their will and beliefs on everyone. How is this happening in our free country? Someone please explain this to me...

Something I've been realizing, though... Is it their religion thinks that homosexuals are sinful, or is it their particular brand or choice of interpretation of that religion? There seem to be many Christians here in the forums that don't subscribe to the same bigotry. (And, of course, many non-Christians that manage to interpret things the same way.) Or is this just wishful thinking?

 

[Mister Emu]

Something I've been realizing, though... Is it their religion thinks that homosexuals are sinful, or is it their particular brand or choice of interpretation of that religion? There seem to be many Christians here in the forums that don't subscribe to the same bigotry. (And, of course, many non-Christians that manage to interpret things the same way.) Or is this just wishful thinking?

There are a few verses in the NT that specifically say that either homosexuals won't goto heaven(1 Cor. 9-10) or that homosexuality was a punishment(Rom 1:24-32) or "them that defile themselves with mankind"(I understand that this can be interpreted in different ways) lumped as ungodly and sinners, with "murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers"(1 Tim 1:9-10)

I guess this means I'm a bigot

 

[Green Gaia]

I believe they are of the opinion that marriage is a privlige not a right.

Well then they are in disagreement with the US Supreme Court, which in 1967 in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, defined marriage as a fundamental human right.

So why is my family not worthy of these rights, Mr. Emu?

 

[Green Gaia]

There are a few verses in the NT that specifically say that either homosexuals won't goto heaven(1 Cor. 9-10) or that homosexuality was a punishment(Rom 1:24-32) or "them that defile themselves with mankind"(I understand that this can be interpreted in different ways) lumped as ungodly and sinners, with "murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers"(1 Tim 1:9-10)

It doesn't matter to me how you interpert your religious holy book, it is not mine, until that view is imposed on me and my family. And this view IS hurting my family.

 

[linwood]

(And, of course, many non-Christians that manage to interpret things the same way.)

I`m one of those non-Christians.

I interpret the Bible as literally as I can and I believe it most definately condemns homosexuality.

I see God also overlooks or condones this sin for his favorites.
I also see that most Christians pick & choose which rules they wish to follow, at least those that condemn homosexuality do.

This whole controversy embodies every reason why I cannot find any good in the Bible or the institution of Christianity.
This controversy shows Gods injustice, hypocrisy, and feeble communication skills.
This controversy shows how God not only advocates intolerance but labels it "divine".
This controversy shows that the Bible was written by small minded ignorant sheepherders in a time that has no bearing on this modern day.
It couldn`t have been written by a "Superior Intellect".

 

[civilcynic]

I think it is naive to believe that the Bush administration's opposition to legalizing same sex unions are solely based on their religious faith. I suggest an equally important factor in this Administration's decision is the economic impact of these unions. Just think all those basic benefits such as healthcare insurance, pensions,etc; that same-sex spouses would have available.

Fortunately, I don't think this country is insane enough to allow for a Constitutional Amenedment banning gay marriages/unions........at least not yet, that is.

 

[Bastet]

I think it is naive to believe that the Bush administration's opposition to legalizing same sex unions are solely based on their religious faith. I suggest an equally important factor in this Administration's decision is the economic impact of these unions. Just think all those basic benefits such as healthcare insurance, pensions,etc; that same-sex spouses would have available.

Yeah...God forbid that any of those damn gays and lesbians should pay anything but top dollar for everything, and double taxes to boot! Not every homosexual couple are DINKs (Double Income No Kids). Not every homosexual is a highly paid professional who can afford to pay more for everything, just because they want to spend the rest of their life with someone of the same gender.

 

[Green Gaia]

I think it is naive to believe that the Bush administration's opposition to legalizing same sex unions are solely based on their religious faith. I suggest an equally important factor in this Administration's decision is the economic impact of these unions. Just think all those basic benefits such as healthcare insurance, pensions,etc; that same-sex spouses would have available.

But that doesn't make any sense either. They're still telling a certain section of the population that they are not good enough to be treated like the rest of society simply because they're different. It's stil discrimination and it's still wrong.

I think you're right though, in the end it won't pass... but we're not far enough on the road to equal rights yet either.

 

[Mister Emu]

Well then they are in disagreement with the US Supreme Court, which in 1967 in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, defined marriage as a fundamental human right.

So why is my family not worthy of these rights, Mr. Emu?

Didn't know about that case. I'll look it up.

It doesn't matter to me how you interpert your religious holy book, it is not mine, until that view is imposed on me and my family. And this view IS hurting my family.

And I wasn't trying to impose it upon you. I was replying to Feathers and that was the only reason for posting.

I see God also overlooks or condones this sin for his favorites.

Where is this?

I also see that most Christians pick & choose which rules they wish to follow, at least those that condemn homosexuality do.

What rules?

This controversy shows how God not only advocates intolerance but labels it "divine".

In your whole "controversy" rant this is the only true statement. God cannot tolerate sin. He abhors it.

Fortunately, I don't think this country is insane enough to allow for a Constitutional Amenedment banning gay marriages/unions........at least not yet, that is

You may hate what I'm about to say, but to stop the amendments you have to throw out the democratic process. In the case in louisiana, if the amendment is thrown out, you know what will happen(if the US Const. amendment doesn't pass that is), next year there will be two amendments one for marriages and one for civil unions.

 

[civilcynic]

But that doesn't make any sense either. They're still telling a certain section of the population that they are not good enough to be treated like the rest of society simply because they're different. It's stil discrimination and it's still wrong.

I think you're right though, in the end it won't pass... but we're not far enough on the road to equal rights yet either.

I agree wholeheartedly! I might also add that I don't think a constitutional amendment will pass because even the members of Congress who are traditionally opposed to gay unions do not think it is a good idea to mess around with the Constitution.

 

[linwood]

I see God also overlooks or condones this sin for his favorites.


Where is this?

Jonathan and David.
We`ve already been over this and your interpretation is different than mine BUT I would like to point out AGAIN that my interpretaion is the same as every Christain publisher who ever published an English translation otherwise they would have had no reason to twist the original Hebrew so ridiculously.
If they weren`t in a homo relationshiop why did every english publisher feel the need to change Gods word to cover it up?

I also see that most Christians pick & choose which rules they wish to follow, at least those that condemn homosexuality do.


What rules?

You know what rules and I won`t have this senseless argument again.
You couldn`t answer my one simple question the last time we had it.

In your whole "controversy" rant this is the only true statement. God cannot tolerate sin. He abhors it.

Odd, he seems to practice it enough.

But I couldn`t care less what your God can or cannot tolerate.
He is powerless over me.

You may hate what I'm about to say, but to stop the amendments you have to throw out the democratic process. In the case in louisiana, if the amendment is thrown out, you know what will happen(if the US Const. amendment doesn't pass that is), next year there will be two amendments one for marriages and one for civil unions.

Read the constitution Mr Emu.
There is no intolerance within it.
Nor will there ever be.

State constitutions will have to follow suit because this one will be taken to The supreme court in every attempt to amend anywhere.

Tolerant,just, Americans will not tolerate this bigotry.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

What rules?

Well, there's always divorce...I seem to recall Jesus being pretty strongly against that, and yet I don't hear people protesting divorce nearly as loudly. I wonder why not? I suppose because enough Americans want it that there's no point...but even so...heh, I wonder if people would protest gay divorce, if marriage were legal?

 

[Mister Emu]

BUT I would like to point out AGAIN that my interpretaion is the same as every Christain publisher who ever published an English translation otherwise they would have had no reason to twist the original Hebrew so ridiculously.

Gadal means alot more than physically great, it also means mental strength, as well as reference to honor.

Odd, he seems to practice it enough.

Ummm, no.

He is powerless over me.

Got a good laugh.

Read the constitution Mr Emu.
There is no intolerance within it.
Nor will there ever be.

State constitutions will have to follow suit because this one will be taken to The supreme court in every attempt to amend anywhere.

Tolerant,just, Americans will not tolerate this bigotry

As I said. If you take it to the supreme court, you throw the democratic porcess out. I did not give my opinion on the matter, just stated the truth. I personally think the SC has more power than they should(both ways, if it was full of conservative Christian justices, they would still hold too much).

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, there's always divorce...I seem to recall Jesus being pretty strongly against that, and yet I don't hear people protesting divorce nearly as loudly. I wonder why not? I suppose because enough Americans want it that there's no point...but even so...heh, I wonder if people would protest gay divorce, if marriage were legal?

If you see my post in the "If you were king" thread, you would see I am against divorce except for adultery(the only reason Jesus said it is ok).

 

[linwood]

Well, there's always divorce...I seem to recall Jesus being pretty strongly against that, and yet I don't hear people protesting divorce nearly as loudly.

Thats because that rule is one of the rules in the OT that must still be followed even thought Jesus said not to.

This is because ..uhh..just because...of something..what was that again?
Oh yeah..hmm..nope..thats not it ...maybe...dunno.

Just because.

I wonder if people would protest gay divorce, if marriage were legal?

I can`t take it anymore!!

 

[linwood]

Gadal means alot more than physically great, it also means mental strength, as well as reference to honor.

Agreed..I never denied that.
However to determine it`s intent you must take it in context and in the context it is used physically large is how it is interpreted.(By me and every English translation of the Book)
I also do not base my argument on that word and that word alone.

Now..for the umpteenth time would you please tell me whether you agree that the Christian Publishers of almost every english translation seemed to agree with my interpretation.

If your answer is no I would like you to tell me why they so obviously and blatently twisted the verse in order to avoid the impropriety of homosexuality.

If you like I will start another thread and re-post the correct translation in English and all the blatent intentional mistranslations in other English versions so you can reach an opinion based on the actual text.

Ummm, no.

Yes.
You see if I am to be judged by others according to your Gods morals I hold the right to judge your God by mine.
He`s a sinner, rips babies from their mothers wombs, kills children for his own ego, slaughters entire cultures, and condones and even orders rape.
Hell..once he even destroyed the entire word and promises to do it again!!
Thats sinning according to my morals.

Got a good laugh.

I always find it amusing.
The most powerful being in the universe has no affect on me whatsoever.
It`s good for my ego.

As I said. If you take it to the supreme court, you throw the democratic porcess out. I did not give my opinion on the matter, just stated the truth. I personally think the SC has more power than they should(both ways, if it was full of conservative Christian justices, they would still hold too much).

Of course you do considering the supreme court is at this point in time the only thing keeping this country from becoming a Christian theocracy.
It`s obvious you`d think they`re too powerful.

Eliminate their power and we can chuck all those homos and athiests into their rightful second class citizen role and be done with it!

Oh..Muslims and Budhists too.
And many others.