On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:13:18PM -0400, Andrew J. Barr wrote: > > > A few points: > > > > - There is no *scripture* that can be used in support of preventing > > interracial marriage. The words of the judge that you quoted are > > certainly *not* the words of God. > > So the Bible is the be-all-end-all when it comes to current issues? > Wow. I don't want to live in your ideal society. > Does the phrase "the Bible is the final authority in *all* matters of faith and practice" mean anything to you? It is what many fundamental and evangelical Christians believe. You are free to believe what you want. > > - There *is* scripture that clearly illustrates that God hates > > homosexual relationships: > > > > "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both > > of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to > > death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13 > > I don't care. I'm not a Christian, why should I be restrained by what > you believe your god hates? You do realize that Leviticus prohibits and > mandates a hell of a lot of other stuff that the wingnuts are > fairly quiet about (or the more self-aware ones attempt to conveniently > interpret loosely). > You misunderstand. While *I* (Roberto, an individual) am vehemently against the prospect of gay marriage and cohabitation, even (whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature), I don't think it is the government's job to tell someone with they can or cannot have sex. I think that the *single* biggest problem facing this country is that government is *way* too big. My comment above was specifically in reply to the quote from the judge in the anti-miscegenation case. As in, what the judge said has no basis in scripture and so cannot be taken as a tennet of Christian faith anymore than the ramblings of a drunk idiot. Just so we are clear, I don't think it is the government's job to tell people with whom they can have sex. > > - Why the virtiol against Bush? What about the amendent proposed by > > Steny Hoyer (a *Democrat*) two years ago that would repeal the > > two-term limit for serving as president? Clearly he wants another > > term of George W. Bush administration. > > > Bullshit. > > I would imagine Mr. Hoyer did this at the prospect of Bill > Clinton serving again, and while I'm at best a tepid fan of the > serial-triangulators Bill & Hiliary, this country would be much much > better under Clinton leadership than the current administration or any > last one of the Republican presidential candidates. > You apparently missed that I was being sarcastic. Of course, nothing bolsters the economy like a "Robin Hood" in the white house. > > BTW, Bush did not propose > > the amendment. Someone in congress did. Bush gave his endorsement. > > Clearly you have no idea of how Washington, or in particular, this > administration, works. Just because a particular Congressman introduced > a bill says nothing about whose idea it was or what right-wing think > tanks talked up the idea before it was proposed. > Would that be a right-wing think tank when a Democrat proposes the amendment (as was the case with the anti-abortion and many other amendments that go against traditional liberal ideals)? > > - What about how three of the seven times that amendments were > > proposed that would invalidate Roe V. Wade and make abortion illegal > > it was propsed by Democrats? Were *they* pandering to "typically > > bigoted and intolerant Christian base" of the Democratic party? > > They lack the courage to stand up for what they believe in. They have > been whipped into submission by the conservative narrative of the past > 30 years and the torrent of Republican talking points that now pass for > conventional wisdom in the press. > So, you hate Bush because he has the courage to stand up for what he believes in and then you hate the Democrats because they don't? So, which way do you want it? > The Democrats deserve plenty of blame for not standing up for what they > believe in, but don't leave out the other half of the story: the > Republican bully machine that created the situation in the first place. > Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature