Democrats & Liberals Archives

Are We Scared Yet?

Stir fear, arouse bigotry then divide and conquer.
It’s the folks like Karl Rove and Tom Delay who have created this hostile, victimizing and polarizing form of government to energize a certain close-minded and hate filled people to back a cause they really don’t know or understand and to cater to those same people who in return will not hold those in office accountable for their morally bankrupt behavior.

Dr. James Dobson comments on the proposed constitutional amendment to declare that marriage is a man-woman only institution. He says, ”Marriage is under vicious attack…from the forces of hell itself.” That's scary stuff. I picture horned demons with bifurcated tails chasing the far-right Christians around the countryside luring them into gay bars and blasting “YMCA” and “It's Raining Men” until they succumb to the evil gay plague.
Why do the states that have not made gay marriage illegal, New York, Massachusetts and Vermont rate among the lowest in divorce rates among heterosexual couples?
Why do Texas, Florida and Louisiana, all states that have made same-sex marriage illegal, have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation? Who cares about facts, certainly not the "folks" Dobson's catering to.

“Activist lawyers and judges are working quickly through the courts to force same-sex marriage on our country.” Sen. James Inhofe
Where? Who? Scarey stuff if you've already branded gays as evil.
Beware of “Straw Men.”

Instead of arguing their cases in a rational manner, using facts and data they instead blame all of societies woes on gay people.(It's so much easier)
They label gay people as evil. How archaic and ignorant is that?
Data shows that the number one reason that male-female married couples get divorced is because of financial problems that put undue strain on the marriage. (Not Sigfreid and Roy?)
You'd think the “fiscally responsible”(joke) Republican controlled government would focus on reversing wealth disparity and increasing the monetary power of the middle class to ease some of the financial burden faced by so many married couples.I guess looking at data and coming up with real world solutions is not as much fun as bashing gays who historically have had little voice and power in the United States. Unfortunately this Republican controlled government is neither fiscally,intellectually or morally responsible and continue to use divisive “hot button” issues as a way to divide and or disillusion the American people.
Which is the more relevant list of issues?
Iraq War
Crushing foreign debt
Gas prices
Medical/Health coverage
Education
Government transparency
Campaign finance reform
Border security
Wealth disparity
The environment
Or…Flag burning, gay marriage, official language remaining English and immigration?

They flourished under fear and bigotry. They grew strong when we allowed ourselves to be divided.
It should not be Red/Blue, Dems/ Reps, Libs/Cons. It should be we the people against our government when thay fail to represent us and we the people, an equal member, of our government when they do.


Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at June 12, 2006 11:36 AM
Comments
Comment #156711

I agree that gay marriage should not be a big issue and BOTH sides should stop making it one.

But immigration (and the status of English as a subset) is probably one of our biggest issues at this time. It will determine the culture of our nation.

I also don’t think gas prices are a problem, expcept I fear they will do to low.

Posted by: Jack at June 12, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #156712

If the Republicans were truly in favor or protecting the institution of marriage, they would be trying to ban divorce.

Posted by: Steve K at June 12, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #156714

But immigration (and the status of English as a subset) is probably one of our biggest issues at this time. It will determine the culture of our nation.

I agree. All those Italian and Yiddish speaking immigrants are going to destroy our culture as we know it. My God! The country will be overrunn with pizza parlors and Delicatessans!! What’s next?? (written 1906 but not posted until the Internet was available.)

Posted by: bobo at June 12, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #156717

Democrats could win in November almost guaranteed if they would follow one simple campaign course. Establish 3 top national priority needs, state how they would resolve them, and run with it.

My recommendations as the top 4:
1) Exit plan for Iraq to be fulfilled by the end of 2007.

2) Secure our borders against terrorists and illegal immigrants by 2010.

3) A seven year plan to end deficit spending and begin paying down the Republican national debt.

4) Present a plan for adjusting Soc. Sec. in a manner that will save it through to the other end of the baby boom.

Keep it simple. Keep it accomplishable. AND KEEP THE DAMN COMMITTMENT to get it done.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #156720

Andre;

Wow! Longest gramtically correct(I think) sentence on this blog yet.

And, Yes! I would like answers to the Iraq, debt, gas prices, etc … questions too. But I’ve never met a Bush supporter who could remember more than one, maybe two, talking points at a time. We wouldn’t want them to hurt themselves. Would we?

BTW: English is not the official language so “official language remaining English” is incorrect.

bobo: Keep up the one liners! Thanks.

Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #156723

Jack, I agree with you about gay marriage as a non-issue, but I don’t see how the Dems have made it an issue. Until the Reps brought up an ammendment it was largely a state issue. The issue was being decided by state courts and legislatures. The Dems had a position, as both parties do on just about every imaginable issue, but it was not a headliner until Bush started pushing for an ammendement, trying to head off the obvious ruling that making gay marriage illegal is unconstitutional.

Steve, you make a great point. But that would alienate WAY too many voters. Not to mention, party members:

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is “Bob Barr…WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

So … homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone’s help!

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #156728

David R. Remer Lets come up with a plan still don’t work.Where is the plan?Iv’e been hearing this bull for years.If you can’t come up with a plan after 6 years what good are you?Your plan is to CUT AND RUN IN IRAQ,LET THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM GO BANKRUPT,GIVE ILLEGALS CART BLANC,KEEP ROBBING THE TAX PAYER.Get over it George Bush is doing a brilliant job as the history books will soon tell.

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #156729

David,

Great list.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #156730

lookingout,

How soon is soon?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #156731

My understanding is that the democrats have a long range plan to ban heterosexual marriage and only allow gay marriages. Vote Republican for god’s sake.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 12, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #156733

lookingout,

Your contribution to the discussion is to twist what was said, put words in someone elses mouth, bash those words you put there and you call that making a point?
Bush is doing a brilliant job at what?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 12, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #156734

lookingout makes a great point.

Notice how his rebuttal against the Democrat ideas (or in his statement the lack there of) are one liners. That is the way the conservatives think. Their party tends to want to have issues put out in front of them with explanations fit for bumper stickers. The Liberals assume that every voter has a reading comprehension above Jr. High. That is not the case. I am sure Republicans could only get through a half a paragraph of the plan John Kerry laid out for Iraq during his campaign. Instead, they would rather have Rush’s intern read it, give it to him, have him explain it in two sentences then talk about how it will not work. That is what the Dems will be dealing with this fall, so they better have a plan this time.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #156735

Mr. Vega Before the 2006 election.Not even the liberal media can stop it.I predict a Usama Bin-Laden Kill about the middle of October!!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #156737

Will that be before or after he makes another tape? Just wondering because I have netflix.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #156739

I thought the Dems were forcing gay marriage down everyones throats when homosexuals were running out to San Francisco, California to get married without even a state vote on it (Remember Rosie O’Donnell)? Right of wrong, issue or non-issue, let’s not forget who forced the issue.

Posted by: Brian B at June 12, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #156741

Andre:
“Instead of arguing their cases in a rational manner, using facts and data they instead blame all of societies woes on gay people.(It’s so much easier)”

Yes. And it’s not just gay people they use in this manner. It’s practically everything they personally don’t approve of that they’ll latch onto in an attempt to stir up hatred, and/or irrational overwrought emotion, and/or false victimization of Christians in the minds of Americans. Indeed, “facts and data” have actually become what “elitist intellectual liberals” deal in!!! It’s so stupid and insane.
The whole Rovian game is to appeal to the basest prejudices and fears that people can have — at the expense of EVERYTHING else — including common sense, common cause, and common decency.

Andre, terrific post (as usual).
David Remer — one more: Energy independence/Addressing Climate Change
David S, nicely done.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #156742

Mr. Vega Usama will release another tape before his demise as he knows the liberal Democrats need more ammunition to fight the United states Of America with.He will as usual Quote the Dems word for word you guys are his bestest buddy.The American people are hip you you guys.

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #156743

What about me Adrienne

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #156745

lookingout,

Could you be more specific?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #156746

“What about me Adrienne”

I don’t like to feed trolls whose comments really add nothing whatsoever to the discussions in Watchblog. Although I have noticed that your personal insults directed at others have already crossed the line on several occasions in ways that have gotten other people permanently banned.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #156749

Yes Mr. Vega Your anta-american Bull talking days are numbered.Have you ever heard of Benedict Arnold?

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #156756

Lookingout,

We can all predict that the terror level will rise. The “credible”(vague or years old) threat information will come pouring in. There will be rumors that the United States will be attacked by a 50ft. homosexual gorilla. Osama will be hunted if not found. The NSA will speak out about the Mexican lesbian gangs crossing the border to help the liberal cause and there will be rumors that the Democrats have secret flagg burning parties at Howard Deans house. The only difference is there are very few people dumb enough to buy the Republican game again. This is fear-mongering aimed at the uninformed who support this administration.
Democrats and Third Party candidates offer different views, listen for a second before attacking.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 12, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #156757

lookingout is a troll. do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: troll hunter at June 12, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #156760

Sorry Adrienne and Troll Hunter.

It is just too easy.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #156761

lookingout,

I have my masters degree in history. What do you think? At least come up with a historical figure that challenges me. Not one you get from the Brady Bunch.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #156763

THE HISTORICAL FIGURE IS THAT our children are failing to learn history because of ease to get a degree in history.

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #156764

Brian B-

At that point it was still a state issue, as marriage has always been a state issue. This is very similar to school segregation in the way it will eventually play out. States will make laws that reflect the will of their people. Those laws will be challenged, and ultimately the Supreme Court will decide. The proposed ammendment is an attempt by republicans to ensure the SC decides their way. Everyone knows the ammendment won’t pass, but it will get some single-issue (or should I say single-non-issue) voters to the polls in November.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #156765

Let’s ban lookingdown ourselves. From here on out don’t feed him, read him, reply to him, or acknowledge him. Simply ignore him.

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #156766

David S

My point was that it is not the state law, but gays were being married in San Fran as if it were the accepted law. I don’t accept it, and I don’t mind leaders using the Constitution and the Bible as references in decision making.

Posted by: Brian B at June 12, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #156767

Oh come now…lookingdown is just what we need. After countless paragraphs of great debate, some Republican Bushie dittohead comes in and…well I don’t know what, but it’s great stuff! Come on! After a hard days work, isn’t it nice to shoot fish in a barrel?

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 12, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #156768

Brian B

What does it say in the Constitution about gay marriage?

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #156769

Andre-

Have you ever been to one of Dean’s flag burning parties? They’re a hoot! If Howie gets drunk enough, he’ll re-enact his campaign-ending speech. You should come next weekend.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #156770

joshuacrime

Hadn’t thought of it that way. It is nice to have easy pickens once in a while. Let’s leave good ol’ lookingdown be.

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #156772

i could be wring, but i think that they mean something else when they say they want to protect the institution of marraige. the issue, i think, is what will marraige mean soon? how long will it be before polygamy will have to be legal? don’t you think that would stop oppressing all the american muslims (not to mention mormons)? are you ok with that? are you ok with churches being forced to perform gay marraiges or lose government breaks even though it might be agianst their beliefs? i wonder if this will spark thoughtful answers or if you’ll just call me a bigot…

Posted by: wondering at June 12, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #156773

Brian B-

Do you live in Cali? If not, then what do you care about marriage law in CA? And if you’re in CA, then surely the Massachusetts ruling wouldn’t bother you. Unless you want to make a non-issue a federal issue.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #156774

i mean wrong, not wring

Posted by: wondering at June 12, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #156777

mark,

Same thing it says about marrying a farm animal.

Posted by: Brian B at June 12, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #156778

Lets also ignore George Bush,Our Generals in Iraq,The folks that don’t want gay marriage,The economists,Lets ignor Wall Street,The folks that want to win the war on terrorism.Lets just listen to liberal democrats who have been embarresing the united states of America for thirty odd years.Lets take this victory over the enemy and run like hell like the democrats forced us to do in the viet-nam war.Lets put the future of our children in the hands of these brave democrats like kerry,kennedy,murtha,polosi and boxer.Lets not listen to terrorest conversations.Lets not lock up terrorest unless we have five star hotels to put them in.Do you people ever listen to your selves?

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #156779

Brian B,

So, in other words, absolutly nothing.

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #156782

Will wonders ever cease! Lookingdown camparing himself to Goerge Bush.

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #156783

Wondering-

You bring up valid points, but they are pretty easily addressed. Polygamy will never be legal because it violates the LEGAL structure of marriage, the basic tenet of the contract. Also, churches would not be required to perform gay marriages, just as they cannot be required to let people who were once divorced marry, if it violates their belief structure.

Thank You for finally raising an intelligent objection to legallized gay marriage. At least someone over there is thinking.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #156784

I said as a refence in decision making. It was a general statement saying there are moralities in the constitution and the Bible.

Posted by: Brian B at June 12, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #156785

Wondering,

“churches being forced to perform gay marraiges or lose government breaks even though it might be agianst their beliefs? i wonder if this will spark thoughtful answers or if you’ll just call me a bigot…”

No, I am not going to call you a bigot. Just misinformed. Ask the Catholic Church if people who have been divorced or not baptised in the church can get married. I just doesn’t happen.


Brian B,

” don’t mind leaders using the Constitution and the Bible as references in decision making.”

The Bible? Ever hear of the separation between church and state? Our elected officials put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They do not put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #156786

lookingout, it was a Democrat President that escalated the Viet Nam war, it was a Republican who cut the cord and left without victory. Not that victory could ever have been attained there without expanding the conflict to a war with China.

Facts, friend, they are a bitch when one speaks with abandon asking for retort.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #156787

Look, anyone who thinks legallized gay marriage is the open door to people marrying multiple partners, children, animals, inanimate objects, whatever…you’re missing the point. Marriage, in the LEGAL sense, is a contract between two consenting adults. Historically, it has been between a man and a woman, but, in America, you cannot bring a person’s sex into any legal finding. Therefore, if person A and person B can marry, then so can person C and D. As long as they are all consenting adults, the law is not allowed to look any deper than that.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #156788

The law of the land supersedes the law of the state. The only time the states can say anything about an issue is if it has not been already given the power to the Federal Government and to the people, meaning your basic fundamental rights.

Now, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not include a caveat that reads “except when Fundamentalist Christian zealots don’t like it”.

Here is how it goes for those of you who are “Republic-impaired”. A republic is a representative democracy. A democracy is majority rule. This nation is NOT a democracy, and therefore, I don’t give a damn if you don’t “accept” a law or not. It’s not your decision.

If a law is clearly unconstitutional, then by all means, have it repealed, but you better be right that it’s unconstitutional. Since when does it say in this nation’s legal framework that Christians are allowed to diddle with the electoral and legislative machinery to promote their faith as the law of the land? It doesn’t, but that’s what I mean by “Republic-impaired”.

For some strange reason, you Christians think that, because you’re the majority in this nation, you can dictate legal measures based on your bullshit book. Well, guess what? You can’t. In this nation, as the Founding Fathers are very clear to point out, a democracy is the worst form of government that exists. It’s mob rule, and the Christians are turning into quite the mob these days. Here we go again, and now more and more people are growing to believe this fallacy about how the US works. The minority of ONE is right where your basic rights are concerned. Not the screaming…oh, I’m sorry…hymn spouting masses.

You’re pretty transparent, at least to me. You want a theocracy in power here in the US. Guess what? I don’t, and neither do any real Americans. You put Jesus in front of the Constitution, and I don’t. I’m the real American here.

In essence, the religious zealots here just looked for a nation that would tolerate their ridiculous crap, and then they will try to corrupt it from within when they get into the majority. If real Americans don’t start taking a stand and stop them, we’ll be no better than Iran.

Gay marriage? A threat? To whom? Tell me by whom and by what means. If you want to get really into it, let’s see…

We can boil the Ten Commandments down to just a few things, really. Be honest, don’t take that which does not belong to you and always be faithful to your word. Now, where does gay marriage fit into this?

Killing is bad. Killing takes something from someone else that can never be replaced.

Stealing is bad. Taking that which doesn’t belong to you.

Coveting…eh…stupid rule. We’d have no consumer based economy if this was really followed. Lucky for us no one in the US really follows it anyway.

Now tell me where gay marriage fits into any of these categories? Nowhere. You can’t come up with any good scientific reason why gay marriage is bad. No one can. The Christian answer to this is that “God says homosexuality was bad, because I say so, and this book is my word here, and the book is the truth and nothing but, because the book says so”. I don’t want to get into the whole faith vs. science debate here, but we’re down to the brass tacks now.

Gay marriage is not unconstitutional. Therefore, no one should prevent them from marrying. You Christians need to follow the 11th Commandment:

Keep Thy Stupid Religion To Thyself, Please.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 12, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #156792

Remer you know as well as i do it was the liberals like john kerry jane fonda that caused us to run from viet-nam.Iguess it was the republicans that spit on our troops as they returned home from viet-nam.You people can no longer rewrite history.You are responsible for every loss the United States of America ever suffered!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #156794

lookingout-

Has a Republican ever done anything wrong?

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #156795

joshuacrime

Excellent rant but please do not lump all Christians together. As a firm believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ I do consider myself a Christian. How anyone who professes to believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God and can dish out so much hate, violence, and greed is beyond my grasp of understanding. Please do not include me in their kind.

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #156796

joshuacrime — you rock. I for one am glad you decided to stick around and add your two cents to these discussions.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #156798

[Lets put the future of our children in the hands of these brave democrats like kerry,kennedy,murtha,polosi and boxer]

I would trust Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Polosi and Boxer with my children’s future rather than Bush and his cadre of crooks. Bush and friends will steal my children’s future.

Posted by: tinkabell at June 12, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #156799

joshuacrime,

“Killing is bad. Killing takes something from someone else that can never be replaced.”

That is where I think religion becomes dangerous. It is too easy to send people to war or to talk about what is going on today when people think that there is a better place when they die. Also

Want to bring religion into Government? Start with 7 deadly sins. Gluttony would be a great one to begin with.

“Gay marriage? A threat? To whom? Tell me by whom and by what means. If you want to get really into it, let’s see…”

I too am waiting for this answer…

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #156800

lookingout

[Liberals] are responsible for every loss the United States of America ever suffered
You forgot to include the Lindberg Kidnapping, the Bermuda Triangle, Disco, and the US loss to the Czech Republic in the World Cup today.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #156801

Sorry, troll hunter and Adrienne, I couldn’t resist.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #156802

David S Yes Every time a republican tries to work with a democrat.And yes when George Bush allowed inbedding the liberal media in Iraq.That was the biggest mistake ever made in the Iraqi war!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #156803

lookingout-

How about the New Deal?

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #156806

The new deal is it will never happen again.Just say no to inbedding!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #156811
i could be wring, but i think that they mean something else when they say they want to protect the institution of marraige. the issue, i think, is what will marraige mean soon? how long will it be before polygamy will have to be legal? don’t you think that would stop oppressing all the american muslims (not to mention mormons)? are you ok with that? are you ok with churches being forced to perform gay marraiges or lose government breaks even though it might be agianst their beliefs? i wonder if this will spark thoughtful answers or if you’ll just call me a bigot…
No one is going to call you a bigot if you’re thoughtful and speak reasonably. I sure won’t. But I agree with Vincent here. You are terribly misinfomed.

Marriage exists in two forms: legal and religious. In reality, the religious form of marriage means nothing in the US, except whatever the faith the people getting married want to believe. Faith is merely belief, and nothing more. You may choose to believe whatever you like, with no punishment or reward involved, provided that you break no laws in doing so.

If you believe the same thing other like-minded individuals, you form a religion or something. You appoint people that are your sheepherders and give them authority over certain things in your lives, such as baptisms, purification rites, marriages, etc.

The religious marriage is fine as it is. There is no one that wants to mess with it that I am aware of. Some people want to challenge the internal affairs of church, and myself personally, am all in favor of that. If no one had ever done that, this world would frankly suck.

It can be argued that homosexuality is indeed against God’s Laws. So is suffering a witch to live. There are plenty of people who put “Wiccan” down on their government forms when the religious belief question comes up. Should all Christians kill these people? Your God said so, roughly in about the same place in the book it says that homosexuality is an abomination, that being the Old Testament (and of course the book the Christians are only supposed to use as a reference since the Testament of Jesus Christ is what is supposed to be used now, and he doesn’t say to kill anyone, does he).

The people that let faith override their common sense, science and reason are dangerous. The problem is in two forms, though. The one is that you get the real zealots that act on their beliefs 100% of the time. From these people you get Eric Rudolph and all the yahoos in the Middle East. The other group, equally as bad, are those that pick and choose what they want to believe and discard the rest. Actually, I think these people are even more dangerous. At least when Hitler decided to go on a rampage, you can’t say that you didn’t know he was going to do it, because he wrote it all down in a book and followed it assiduously. Not so with the “temperate Christians” or “moderate Muslims”. They can just decide that this rule is crap and this one is OK, and we’ll really dig into this one, as it’s really serious. How can you have faith in a religion and not follow it’s precepts? If you did follow Christianity in it’s entirety, most Christians would be in prisons all over the world, because you just can’t do all that Old Testament stuff without being a seriously sick individual.

All of the religious aspect of marriage has precisely a null intercept with the legal marriage. Legal marriage is a contract between two people, period. We’ve been over this 100 times already, mate. It’s a legal document, and many people in this nation get married. The states decided that their marriage laws work a certain way, and you don’t have to have it in a church, synagogue, mosque, snake pit, or wherever else you might think is “sacred”. You can get married by a judge, and this has zero religious implications. It’s just legal and that’s all. The reason it’s wrong to make gay marriag unconstitutional is that it deprives people in love the right to care for one another in a legally binding sense, with all of the benefits of marriage, meaning tax breaks, joint ownership, etc.

So, once again, where is it written in any US law that the Christians (or Muslims or Hindus or the others) have a say in what a LEGAL marriage is. They don’t, but this is where the problem lies. Because Christians that are this fervent about it are not able to distinguish between the two, they feel that “their institution” is being threatened. Bullshit. The religious institution of marriage isn’t being threatened. The legal one is, but that’s only because the Christians have been allowed to interfere with the state to get their own beliefs introduced as law.

And I’m going to way disagree with anyone here that doesn’t think this issue is a top issue for the US. The erosion of our liberties by religious fanatics is about the most serious national issue we’ve had since Nixon and Watergate, unless you want to count the narcoleptic pinheaded Reagan falling asleep at the wheel while Oliver North and crew shred the Constitution during the Iran-Contra debacle.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 12, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #156812

You do know what the New Deal was, right? And what the hell is inbedding? Are you making up words? Try: “Just say no to inbreeding”.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #156815

Iknow what the new deal is today Your shit dont wash anymore.

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #156816
joshuacrime

Excellent rant but please do not lump all Christians together. As a firm believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ I do consider myself a Christian. How anyone who professes to believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God and can dish out so much hate, violence, and greed is beyond my grasp of understanding. Please do not include me in their kind.

I would never do that. A real Christian is a tolerant, loving, caring and reasonable human being. Jesus sure was, and I love that man.

I love Mohammed also. And Vishnu and Krishna and Shiva. And Buddha (well, Siddhartha anyway, hope I spelled it right off the top of my head) too. And Confucious too. Did I leave any out? All brilliant men.

Point me to the tolerant Christians, and I’ll be right there with you all the way. Point me to the Pharisees, zealots and liars, especially those that hide themselves in political vestments, and I’ll be taking up arms with my fellow real Americans against these dangers to my nation. Plenty of people have taken up the pen to fight these religious nuts, and some have taken up the Sword.

Can you envision a time in this nation where armed rebellion to fight for our rights might not only become likely but a necessity for the continuation of liberty? If the Religious Republican Right continues to do what they do, we might have that situation sooner than you like. The question then becomes, “will you live on your knees or die on your feet”?

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 12, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #156817

Inbreeding is a liberal thing!Im not hip!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #156820

Yeah, all you liberals stop making gay marriage such a big issue. Jack feels we’re just making noise about it to win votes. So just stop trotting out those constitutional amendments to make gay marriage legal and stop lambasting those judges who find state laws against it constitutional. For pity’s sake, just leave it alone and try to focus on something constructive, like flag-burning. Or bad TV. Or 9/11 widows. You know, something like that.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #156825

lookingout is a troll. do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: troll hunter at June 12, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #156827

Jack

You know, if you lived in a big city or at least visited one occasionally you would know that we have already changed. The high school graduation I went to last week had a rainbow of student skintones and names. Hmong, Cambodian, Mexican, Somali, East European, Middle Eastern, African American, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indian, South American, African, all with a melody of names and accomplishments. The valedictorian was an African American girls with daunting credentials. Two main streets through our city now provide a smorgasbord of restaurants, stores, and art that don’t look anything like Ike’s America.

And Ike’s American is what those suddenly panicking about immigration imagine America to still be. It’s an easy fantasy if you live in our less populated areas: ethnically, they look much the same as they did 50 years ago.

But, no, you’ve already lost if you want the whole country to be that way still. Unless, of course, you want to kick a whole host of legal immigrants out of the country now. They are reproducing faster than the European-pedigreed folks, and soon we will be a melange of skin colors and ethnicities, without a white, European majority to whip into a frenzy about the “immigrants”.

Immigration is another wedge issue to rattle the fear-based voters. I read a quote to day form J. S. Mill, something to the effect that not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative. Well, if that’s your base, you’ve gotta go with what you’ve got. But at least fess up to what you’re about.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #156838

Good one, Mental.

Back in my day, in white America, we had the descendants of the immigrants that came here. Back when most of these family settled my area (NW Pennsylvania), there wasn’t any such thing as “legal immigration”. They just showed up on boats, they were counted and sent out to the land of opportunity. Sound like anyone you know?

The initial wave of the immigrant population was the usual suspects: Irish, German, British, French. Oh, man! The furor that was raised when the Italians showed up. Oh, yeah, and the Swedes, Norwegians and Finns. Shall we discuss the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Russians and Bulgarians that came in to work in the mines? Oh, and I nearly forgot, the (gasp) black families (of which there were no more than 4) that had been there since the mid 1800’s.

Every entrenched group of Americans has discriminated against the new waves of immigrants at every stage in the game since we were a nation (and well before that, actually). It’s a fact, and it’s one that escapes the brains of those that oppose open immigration subject to criminal background checks and the like. It’s been that way for CENTURIES. Why is it all the sudden such a big deal?

The Republicans need another bugaboo for the next election. It will go up there right along with raising the terrorism threat level, more gay marriage bashing and lies about the progress and conduct of the Iraq war.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 12, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #156905

—-Are We Scared Yet?—- The next question has to be answered first. Who can you trust, Your minister your politician your spouse yourself. All the above will play the blame game because few will accept the responsibility for them selves an must point the finger at some one else. Now you be the the judge and decide who they all blame their misfortunes on. Know thy self first.then get scared as hell.

Posted by: DAVID at June 12, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #156929

WOW!! Now I know why I have been divorced twice, it all the fault of gays and their wanting to be married. What a relief, not spelled rolaids, to me to know just who to blaim. Thank you good ultra right Christian nut jobs for this.

I feel so much better. Now should I put this minority on some Hate List.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at June 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #156935

I’m agnostic, but I respect those with various religious beliefs. Recently I see a truly venimous contempt among Americans for those with varying religious beliefs. Why?

Could this be one of many reasons:
Using Children as ‘God’s Army’
http://www.alternet.org/movies/37373/

Notable quote: “a camp counselor places a life-size cardboard cutout before the group. No, it’s not Jesus. It’s George Bush. Clapping erupts and Becky encourages them to “say hello to the President.” Becky claims that “President Bush has added credibility to being a Christian.”

Are you scared yet? How far away are we from the type of fanaticism that creates a monster like Bin Laden? Have we done so before? Where did the OKC bombers come from? Will a majority of Americans be able to pull their heads out of their “nether regions” to smell the coffee?

I’m not at all sure that we’re not headed toward the end of our beloved democracy. We’ve all become too consumed with greed and self righteousness.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #156941

Hear hear…Andre nice piece

Mark
Thank you. I was just thinking how there MUST be some Christians,even right wing Christians ,that must be getting sick and tired being played for fools. I caught some program on CBN about how global warming was a evil hoax with evidence presented from “expert” working for a think tank funded by oil companies. I mean just how gullible do they think you people are. What, do they do sit around and discuss it. “We have to find a large group the will believe this hogwash. Who should we pick?” “Lets see,the blacks aren’t any good.They wised up. Same with women…hmm,maybe we could get rid of that suffrage thing..later. Last time we tried the latinos they just laughed at us and voted for Kerry.Hell even white men between 18 and 49 are too damn smart.” “I know. We could use right wing Christians. They’ll believe anything.”

Posted by: BillS at June 12, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #156956

wondering

Whats so bad about polygomy any way? The Bible says it is ok. The same bible that says homosexuals and shellfish are abominations and my wife should be stoned for not being a virgin when we married.

Posted by: BillS at June 12, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #157001

BillS,
I am a left-wing, liberal Christian who lives a conserative life style. There are actually a lot of liberal Christians but we are much too polite and quite. We do not believe in force in religion as we have all been given the gift of free will. We do not believe in violent solutions to the worlds problems. We believe in loving God by loving our Neighbor. I don’t see how the so called Christian right wingers show love for their neighbors. I see much more hate being spewed by their kind. With Christians like them, who needs atheists.

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #157137

hmmm judging others?? Might want to check with God on that one Mark.

Christians disagree with homosexuality, it goes against the bible and we do not want it supported by our government. There is No hate in that statement. Its a simple belief.

The christians I know, pray for the souls of homosexuals, and absolutely do not “hate” them.

This portrayal of christians hating homosexuals is not correct.

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #157147
hmmm judging others?? Might want to check with God on that one Mark.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. God is the judge (as far as your Christian faith teaches you). You are not to judge your fellow man. Those who do not follow this very basic tenet of Christianity are not Christians at all. They are hypocrites and liars.
Christians disagree with homosexuality, it goes against the bible and we do not want it supported by our government. There is No hate in that statement. Its a simple belief.
Good for you. As an American with protected rights for my liberty and my pursuit of happiness in life, I’ll thank you, Torquemada, from interfering with the lives of my fellow Americans because your God told you it was a good idea to do so.

I, frankly, don’t give a flying !@#$ what your God says for you to do. You do it on your own time, and out of my sight. The government doesn’t “support” anything by allowing gays to hold civil unions and to be allowed the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. The government merely allows it to take place because there is no reason on Earth from a scientific point of view why they should not be allowed to. If all you have is some text in a Bible read from a passage that you New Testament Christians aren’t even supposed to be following any longer, then you need to do better. It’s a crap argument.

If you don’t agree with homosexuality, fine. Do not allow it into your home and your property. If you don’t like having homosexuality around your children, then shelter them from the realities of this world and keep them boxed up at home like Cracker Jack prizes. Do you think I care?

The christians I know, pray for the souls of homosexuals, and absolutely do not “hate” them.
No offense, but you’re a liar. An unpleasant truth is still true, regardless. The Christians I know are all in favor of discriminating against a lifestyle their religion forbids. The states overwhelmingly agree, because most states are filled with Christians who place their loyalty for their faith above that of their nation. Christians are not Americans when they place their loyalty above the nation, sorry. When you’re in Heaven, you can be a Christian. When you’re in Church, you can be a Christian. When you’re out here, you had better learn some tolerance or you will be labeled for the traitorous vermin you are. You wish to inundate my Constitution with this pseudo-mystical bullshit, and you expect me to not react? Get real.
This portrayal of christians hating homosexuals is not correct.
Yes, it is. Discrimination is hate. Look it up. If you need help, I shall direct you to page upon page of discrimination that occured in our very recent past due to skin color. I can direct you even further back to discrimination based on religious beliefs, both here and in our mother countries. Want more? How about some “faith based initiatives”? Did you read about how we massacred Indians because of religious hatred? How about Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears?

How would you Christians like a real introduction to the hatred that spills out DAILY because of your insistence to act on your faith rather than to let it be a guide for your own life and your own acts? You wouldn’t, because I will shut you down so fast it will make you vomit. But, most Christians can’t take the truth, and so they lie about it to themselves to make them feel better.

When you allow gays in this nation to do whatever it is that makes them happy provided that those activities do not break any law that is not based on some bullshit religious tenet (like sodomy), then I will say that you Christians do not hate homosexuals. Until you do, then you do hate them, and everyone with half a brain will say you hate them, and will hate YOU because you’re an ass.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #157206

joshuacrime, why do you hate Christians?

Posted by: SirisC at June 13, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #157210


wow, josh! lots of negitive energy.

Josh, not sure how to respond, you seemed to have missed most of my simple points.


I, frankly, don’t give a flying !@#$ what your God says for you to do. You do it on your own time, and out of my sight. The government doesn’t “support” anything by allowing gays to hold civil unions and to be allowed the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. The government merely allows it to take place because there is no reason on Earth from a scientific point of view why they should not be allowed to. If all you have is some text in a Bible read from a passage that you New Testament Christians aren’t even supposed to be following any longer, then you need to do better. It’s a crap argument.

I understand your high energy point. I simply am saying that its my right to notify my representive of my disagreement for the governments acknowledgement of homosexual marriages.

But I dont hate you Josh!


Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #157219

MacIrish

What was it that Jesus said about homosexuals?(Hint: You can’t find it in the Bible.)
What was it he said about Loving Your Neighbor?(Hint: He meant everyone.)

Posted by: mark at June 13, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #157225

Well, Rove is innocent; you libs can’t use your (slanderous) accusations anymore, yet I’m sure you still will.


Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #157232

rahdigly-

Waaaaaay off topic.

MacIrish-

The point is that, though in the majority, the Christians in America have no right to impose their religious views on those who are not Christian.

Further, I would argue that it is hate that has placed this issue at the forefront. Otherwise why not argue against the death penalty, or against divorce, as both are sanctioned by the government and directly break commandments? I don’t believe that all or even most Christians hate homosexuals, but I believe that some do and have used that hatred to fuel a national debate over what is a cut and dry example of discrimination.

Posted by: David S at June 13, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #157237

It is refreshing to hear from Christians who understand what Jesus taught.

Jesus taught us the reasons for the law when he said that the greatest law/commandment is to love God and to love each other.

Anyone who follows rules, laws, commandments, interpretations from the Bible or the Christian faith, for any reason other than LOVE, is not following them as God intended.

Posted by: Meg at June 13, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #157243


David, that was a very rational well thought out response and you did not once call me a name. Thanks!

Id be willing to compromise on this topic as a christian.

1) Dont call it Marraige, because that would indicate that its sanctioned by God.

2) I personally dont see why individuals that want to share finances and personal property cant enter into an agreement of some sort that binds them contractually.

Why restrict the fun of divorce to just us christians..haha

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #157262

Not only will you libs deny it; you’ll also avoid the topic altogether. Keep it up; we know (exactly) who you are and what you believe.


Rove is innocent; Iraq’s looking (alot) better; and so is the economy. Hoh, hum…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #157263

Still off topic, but just because Rove is not going to be indicted does not mean that he is innocent.

All it means is that Fitz doesn’t have a case against him. (yet).

Innocent? I doubt it. Indictable? I guess not.

Posted by: Timmer at June 13, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #157271

—-rahdigly—-I have not seen any of the three news people who testified ROVE had OUTED the CIA agent were being prosecuted by any of the several Grand Juries .I also suppose the special prosecutor being offered a life time Judgeship played no role in his decision not to prosecute had any bearing on that decision>??????? Try looking at the facts again and maybe you will change you mind !I suppose you will be like all good little republicans an follow your leader,no matter what The consequence will be.

Posted by: DAVID at June 13, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #157278

If the Bible is the one true word of God, why are there so many versions? If Christianity is the only true path to God, why are there so many different religions, and Christian denominations. Is it possible that the “Divinity” we are directed to attribute to the writers of the Bible, may not be an appropriate attribute for the translators. How many times in history have we seen a strong connection between religious leadership and government? How prevalent is it now? How many translations has the Bible been through? The one that strikes me as being most relevant is the King James version. It is a translation commissioned by a reigning Monarch whose purpose was to supplant himself as the religious leader of his country, which incidentally succeeded. There were a group of people that thought this was a really bad idea, and believed that religious authority be purely centered in scripture and not in government.

Now even within that scripture, there is obvoius opportunity to translate it to suit a particular socio-political agenda, and with our forms of religeous authority to accept the interpretation of the person behind the pulpit. The foundation of the constitution was based largely on Masonic principles, and specifically avoided religious content. In other words the founders of the country fought to keep the interpretation of religious scripture out of government entirely.

Even the term “In God We Trust” on our money, was less intended as a Christian proclaimation, as it was a puritan middle finger to the English Monarchy.

Posted by: DOC at June 13, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #157286


Doc,

Everything from the past is open for interpretation. My interpretation disagree’s with homosexuality.

I agree with Meg’s statement

Anyone who follows rules, laws, commandments, interpretations from the Bible or the Christian faith, for any reason other than LOVE, is not following them as God intended.

I think her/his statement sums it up nicely!

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #157290

“lookingout,
Your contribution to the discussion is to twist what was said, put words in someone elses mouth, bash those words you put there and you call that making a point?”

That’s all he’s capable of.
The greatest feature Yahoo has on their boards is the “ignore” button. Any chance we could get that on this forum????
How much time and bandwidth do we waste on this guy instead of thoughtfully debating pressing issues? I can sum up EVERY post from this guy in three simple talking points:

Liberal media,

Socialist, homo loving, terrorist sympathising democrats hate america,

EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS AN IDIOT.

Now, if everyone would just stop feeding him, he’ll get bored and go away.

Posted by: norby at June 13, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #157291

—-DOC—Some people believe the majority of the worlds population only believe in religion because they are afraid of the unknown? A trick question. Are we better as a society because of Religion or not.

Posted by: DAVID at June 13, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #157298

It may be a summary of your interpretation, but has no bearing on the topics I presented. I have no problem with anyone who personally disagrees with homosexuality. I have a problem when they use religious interpretaion to generate laws that support nothing but their viewpoint.

To be clearer.
Point #1
Religious texts may have been interpreted and translated in such a way that people beleive something that was “Not” God’s intention, but the intention of man to single people out and promote xenophobia.

Point #2

Religion morality is secondary to ethics when it comes to the type of government the founders set up for us.

So while I appreciate the “Love” that You and Meg appear to have for those you disagree with, others “Do not”.


Posted by: DOC at June 13, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #157307

“All it means is that Fitz doesn’t have a case against him. (yet). Innocent? I doubt it. Indictable? I guess not.”


“Try looking at the facts again and maybe you will change you mind! I suppose you will be like all good little republicans an follow your leader, no matter what The consequence will be.”


Ok, let’s see, “Innocent”, “indictable”, etc. he’s still not guilty of what the MSM and the rest of the libs have said about him for the past year. And, now, all that’s been said is false. In fact, all the naysayers and the “Pull out of Iraq now” fools are proven wrong, as well. The negatives on the economy have been wrong, too. You libs are hurting right now and, I have to say, I’m (actually) enjoying it. Every minute of it.


Love how you guys just proved me right. Nice!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #157312


DAVID - My position is that “religion is to spirituality as excersise is to health” Taking it to the individual level, some people do not need a great deal of extra excersise to be healthy (just a little is enough), while others who excersise regularly die prematurely of something else. If you can make the same correlations in reference to religion, you understand my position. At the group level, I just can’t find it within myself to tell others who I think they should think God is. I find that those who do it best, give you enough information to make you obsessively come to your own conclusion. I find that those who do it worst, are those who would make you believe that you will never come to a conclusion without their help. The trick in the question, is the dichotomy. It manifests itself best in the individual, and worst in the group.

Posted by: DOC at June 13, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #157316

DOC is right. People have every right to disagree about homosexuality. But to force your beliefs on everyone else not only goes agains’t the basic tenet of our founding fathers(FREEDOM), but also agaisn’t a basic teaching of Jesus(no force in religion). God gave us the gift of free will, each one of us, and to force ours on someone else is a sin.

Posted by: mark at June 13, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #157321

—rahdigly This is not right or wrong Question I would like justice for all without asking permisision from anyone as what right or wrongs they may believe someone else should dance too.

Posted by: DAVID at June 13, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #157326

—DOC—Exactly right!! Thank you,didn’think you would get it.Guess I am not as smart as I thaught.

Posted by: DAVID at June 13, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #157333

“This is not right or wrong Question I would like justice for all without asking permisision from anyone as what right or wrongs they may believe someone else should dance too.”

Huh?!!!?

Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #157344

Amen to whoever said they would trust their children with Kerry and company. I to would trust my children with them. Under Bush I’m afraid that my 17 year old will be drafted. Since they can’t get enough people to enlist on their own, it will have to be reinacted. As far as the issue of gay marriage or lifestyles, as long as they don’t bring it to your house or mine, what business is it really of anyone else. Unless your lives are so dull or boring that you have nothing better to do than to judge others, hell I have enough to do in my own life than to judge someone else. Rahdigly as far as Rove being innocent, thats a stretch. He was just lucky he had to go before one of Bush’s lackeys that has no mind of his own. Thats what happens when you put judges in their positions they feel they owe you for the rest of their lives. As far as the economy being on the upswing, the last I heard this morning was that the dow and other stocks were falling fast due to the rise of the interest rates. And again I go back to when Bush was debating Kerry, when the words came right out of his mouth that he thought Iraq was an unwinnable war. There are still Americans being killed in this stupid war that we had no business getting into in the first place.

Speaking of one-liners, I saw the best bumper sticker the other day. It said “At least when Clinton lied, he didn’t lose lives.”

Posted by: Sherri at June 13, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #157349

So much to remember…….

Pretend you’re roommates at Lisa and Bob’s.

Polite conversation only at all at Nora and Steve’s.

Strictly friends in front of the grandparents.

No gay wedding re-enactments in front of Sherri.

And absolutely no live sex demonstrations in front of anyone unless specifically asked.

Sheesh….I guess it really is no different than the way things have been in the past.

Posted by: DOC at June 13, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #157366

Jack-
Por que ?
Ich ein en American ! Immigrants are our lifeblood! Call them legal,illegal,its all good. What makes this country the diverse,exciting,creative,juggernaut that is is,comes down to this.
A small group of repressed,frightened,outcast people over 200 years ago did not create this culture, this country, nor the forceful and dynamic energy that it thrives on.
To put a different complexion on it, it took a lot of different spices,to make this unbelivable stew. Dig in Jack! When we all start to realize that the world lives here and this is the world, maybe then we can all start to relax and enjoy the ambiance. Sayonara!

Posted by: jblym at June 13, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #157408

—jblym You are correct to say we should allow immigrants an most folks agree. I have no idea when legal immigrants in the thousands per year changed to millions of illegal immigrants per year, became the the norm. I think the people on lists waiting to become part of us should have first choice. looking back over the years seeing how well most of those immigrants have assimilated tn seem to be doing quiet well over time. I feel badly for the illegal people here that must look over their shoulder and worry all the time about being sent back to where ever!

Posted by: DAVID at June 13, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #157438

“No, I am not going to call you a bigot. Just misinformed. Ask the Catholic Church if people who have been divorced or not baptised in the church can get married. I just doesn’t happen.”

Vincent Vega - just a little correction. Being raised Catholic I can answer these questions. Actually most deals with what kind of priest you have and how much money you have.

You can be married again in the Catholic Church as long as your first marriage is “annulled” properly. Annulled in this case means you pay the church thousands of dollars and after a few years, the old marriage “never existed”. Also, an interesting point is that any children you had in your first marrage are considered “bastards”.

For the second question, I can answer this personally. Like I said, I was born and raised Catholic. My husband isn’t anything. He was never baptised and I would label him agnostic today. We were able to be married in the church due to an extremely lenient priest and some adjustments to the ceremony. If you’re familiar at all with a Catholic ceremony, you know there’s a place in the middle of mass called a “homily” where the priest gives his sermon. After the homily, the mass is known as the “liturgy of the word”. This is the part right before communion. I had to omit everything after the homily and couldn’t have communion, but could be married with the full sacrament.

Posted by: Lisa C. at June 13, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #157482

— Lisa—Do you really believe God while holding a child would call that child a bastard. This has to be the most profane statement I have ever seen on the web. This statement was not meant to offend you unless you really believe God made such an offensive statement.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #157518

Doc,

Yes it does have to do with your topic.

Please read all my comments.

Posted by: MacIrish at June 14, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #157581

Mac,

I apologize. I’ve read through these a half a dozend times and still can’t see where you touched on the loss of Biblical accuracy through misinterpretaion and politically motivated translation. I also can’t find where you’ve made a strong case supporting the addition of religious interpretation into federal law.

Be that as it may, I assume based on your reply that you prefer that everyone keep thier discussions focused around your opinions. So with that I’m curious:

Exactly how much heartswelling “Love” does it take before a Christian contacts his or her government representatives to add their voice to blatant discrimination against those whose souls they have been praying for so busily?

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #157627
— Lisa—Do you really believe God while holding a child would call that child a bastard. … Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 12:58 AM
Not to speak for Lisa, but it seems like it’s the church calling the children bastards. Unless you think the church is the word of g-d, then it is only the church and its members saying such things. Posted by: Dave at June 14, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #157655

—Dave - All Churches claim they speak for God and I believe the God in my heart who would never allow such a statement be made in any church or any other platform.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #157662

DAVID,

The Westboro Baptist Church is a church, and it claims to speak for God. Why would God allow them to make the statements they do, if he doesn’t allow such a relatively benign word such as “bastard” to be used?

Posted by: Introspective at June 14, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #157680

Doc,

Thank you for clearing up what you wanted a reply to.

I’ve read through these a half a dozend times and still can’t see where you touched on the loss of Biblical accuracy through misinterpretaion and politically motivated translation. I also can’t find where you’ve made a strong case supporting the addition of religious interpretation into federal law.

I didnt find it productive to restate the passages from the bible. Im sure you know these passages and are very ready to argue there interpreted validity and Ive heard these arguements and I disagree with them.

So I kept my reply to the simplist form and answered the last part of your leading statement.

“Its my right as american to contact my representive and tell him my views on certain subjects. Homosexuals should not get Married”

Should they be able to enter into a financial contract like other Married couples, I dont see why not, but keep the word “Marriage” for people of faith.

Posted by: MacIrish at June 14, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #157688

Thanks Mac,

I agree that it is your right to contact your representative and state that, “Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry”. I also beleive that it is your right to state the same thing to a Tree. I maintain that that the Representative and the Tree should have the same ability to turn that particular grievance into a constitutional ammendment, or federal law.

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #157691

Introspective,

Ever heard of free agency? If God intervened when people said hatefull or did evil things in his name, there would no longer be free agency.

Posted by: SirisC at June 14, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #157702

SirisC,

Ever heard of free agency?
I think you need to address your comment to DAVID. He is the one who claims that God would intervene to keep a church from making much statements. I do not agree with him, and was merely demonstrating how God does not control everything a church says just because it claims to speak for God.

Posted by: Introspective at June 14, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #157717

Introspective,

Sorry, I must have missed that.

Posted by: SirisC at June 14, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #158081

—-God does not make your decisions although he gives you the ability to make choices, right or wrong. A child did not ask to be born an needs all the protection we all must offer. I really don’t believe a child would understand the term(relative).

Posted by: DAVID at June 15, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #158974

It seems that every female I know including my wife has had at least one same-sex encounter. Where are they in Inhofe’s book?

Posted by: chris at June 18, 2006 10:33 PM
Post a comment