I don't know about all Republicans but I oppose it because it is just plain a stupid idea. Of course anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the Bible would be able to address you comments but you would probably just ignore that anyway so I won't bother.......
2007-10-22 04:37:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brian 7
·
8⤊
11⤋
Ben K is splitting hairs and he's normally falsely claiming religion has nothing to do with homophobia everyone's meant to have the same basic rights homosexuality isn't a choice yet they'll lie that it is and they aren't convinced when lesbians, gays and bisexuals tell them otherwise, lying that it's choice means they can feel OK to be homophobes many think marriage is christian which is also nonsense "homosexual" was a term coined in 1869 so it can't be in the bible or a sin, the bible's been mistranslated and misunderstood the bigots make it seem like people into the same gender don't fall in love and have the same feelings/emotions as heteros edit: I don't see how it's immoral that some people are into sex only edit2: kdanley - necrophilia is non-consensual, enough said edit3: it's not a choice British bigot
2016-04-09 21:37:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am at a loss to know why you are pretending that it is only Republicans who are opposed to gay marriage -- or anything else that smacks of gay rights. There are plenty of Democrats who are opposed to those things, too.
Perhaps you've forgotten that as of 50 years ago every single state in the country banned "sodomy." Every single state! Are you going to blame Republicans for the laws of all 50 states?
As of 14 years ago, when Congress last had a Democrat majority in both chambers, that party could not muster enough votes to pass legislation that would have lifted the ban on gays in the military.
A fews after that, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, 2/3s of the Democrats who were in Congress voted in favor of that bill. And Prez Clinton signed it into law. One of the foremost reasons why Democrats can be "against" a constitutional amendment now is because they already voted against gay marriage 11 years ago when they helped pass the DOMA.
Stop picking on the Republicans and start pointing your finger at the Democrats, too.
2007-10-22 05:02:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The banning of shrimp and clam chowder is on the agenda, but they will not bring it up till they have murdered all the Gays and Apostates, and all the other indulger's in the crimes of thought, sex, individualism, and humanity.
Some posters think that the New Testament frees us from the old, but the Dominionists focus more on the Old and ignore the Liberal policies of the New. Many also reject King James for the more Authoritarian Old Schofield Bible.
In any case the capture of the Republican party and conservative Religions by these extremists are a threat to everyone from gays to those who have ever eaten a shrimp.
Oh and apostates are all those who have ever said they were Christian, but would not go along with these folk.
2007-10-22 04:51:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Freedem 3
·
6⤊
3⤋
I think that is why any Christian regardless of political party opposes homosexuality. The difference in politics, is that we Liberals can separate our religion from our politics, so we are therefore less judgmental on Gay Marriage.
But as far as food goes, eating a pig was also banned by the old testament. But Christ told Peter in the New Testament that which is cleansed by God is acceptable. That is why Christians eat pork but Jews and Muslims still don't.
2007-10-22 04:44:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
Many Christains will argue that God had his only son tortured and murdered on a cross so we don't need follow those particular rules any more. But I still have lots of questions.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids this. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them, as per Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
2007-10-22 04:42:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Honest Opinion 5
·
9⤊
4⤋
You obviously have never studied the Bible. Taking scripture out of context does not prove your point. Within the Bible there is a plan for his people (Jews) as well as a plan for all believers (Christians). Before Christ's coming, the Jews lived by the law, some of which you are quoting. Practicing Jews today still live by the law, because they do not accept Christ as the King of Kings. Gentiles (the rest of us) were never under the law and because Christ has come we live in the Age of Grace and do not have to keep the law.
Edit: By the way, I am not a Republican. I am registered Democrat, but vote for who I choose. The Moral Majority headed by Jerry Falwell made religion a political issue in the early 80's. God does not belong to a political party.
2007-10-22 04:52:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
5⤋
"Right = Correct", you undermined your own argument so well I hardly need to point it out, but for the sake of those not familiar with the Bible I'll explain. All of the prohibitions against homosexuality that you right-wingers are so fond of quoting are in the Old Testament, and therefore in your own words they're "completely optional to a believer". In that case, why are you fanatics so determined to deprive people of their rights based on outdated passages?
2007-10-22 04:57:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by ConcernedCitizen 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Ok here is how i see it, republicans are just trying to create an issue to get the vote of church goers, i myself am a christian and i follow the bible very closely, but i consider myself a democrat.
Republicans are just trying to scare church goers to vote for them, or else GAYS WOULD TAKE OVER. Fascist republicans love putting fear into people to get votes. The fact is study for candidates before you vote, that would help.
2007-10-22 04:55:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by john a 1
·
6⤊
1⤋
Very few people that proclaim to be devout have ever actually read the Bible, preferring to let someone else interpret it for them. I think a lot of them would be surprised at what it does say if they took the time to read it.
And yes, I have, I learned a long time ago that if you're going to argue something, you better know what you're talking about. It took almost a year, but I have read it.
2007-10-22 04:41:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
2⤋
I think its more because you can't really have a "marriage" according to the definition of the word between two people of the same sex. I personally don't care - but its not really marriage.
Good Luck!!!
2007-10-22 04:42:46
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋