PDA

View Full Version : Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term


Rocketta
Nov 7th, 2004, 07:11 PM
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/reuters120.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/reuters/brand/SIG=pd7i95/*http://www.reuters.com) Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term -Aide

1 hour, 41 minutes ago
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6400&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26cid=615%26e=3%26u=/nm/20041107/pl_nm/bush_agenda_dc) Politics - Reuters (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6400&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26cid=615%26e=3%26u=/nm/20041107/pl_nm/bush_agenda_dc)

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22President%20Bush%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=President%20Bush)) will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20041107/amdf748330.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041107/photos_ts/mdf748330)
Reuters Photo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041107/photos_ts/mdf748330)


Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.



"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday."



Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages.



Renewing his push for an amendment -- despite its slim chances of success -- would be a way for Bush to reward his conservative base. The amendment would face a steep hurdle winning the needed approval of three-fourths of the states.



Other items on Bush's second-term agenda included nominating -- without a "litmus test" on abortion -- judges who would "strictly interpret" the Constitution, and tax reform. Rove said Bush wanted to review the tax code "in its entirety," which suggested a broad-based reform was possible.



Republicans' ability to deliver on their campaign agenda will help determine whether the party can realize its potential to retain a governing majority for decades, he said.



The gay-marriage issue leaped into the campaign spotlight this year after Massachusetts legalized the practice in response to a state Supreme Court ruling, and San Francisco began performing gay marriages in defiance of a state ban.



Ballot measures in 11 states to ban gay marriages all passed last week. Gay-rights groups have vowed to keep fighting for legal protections of same-sex relationships despite the election setbacks.



CIVIL UNIONS



Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.



Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.



"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."



U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/politics/news/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Sen.%20Susan%20Collins%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw), bio (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/bio/SIG=11762iok5/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=283), voting record (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/vote/SIG=11gcal0d2/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/keyvotes/?id=283)), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."



ABORTION



Asked whether Bush intended to appoint anti-abortion judges to Supreme Court vacancies considered likely to come open in Bush's second term, Rove said the president would not use a litmus test. He said Bush wanted his judicial nominees to be "impartial umpires" who would strictly interpret the law and Constitution.



He played down a conservative firestorm over a suggestion last week by Sen. Arlen Specter (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/politics/news/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Sen.%20Arlen%20Specter%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw), bio (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/bio/SIG=117p02ae7/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=497), voting record (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/vote/SIG=11gg4hb20/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/keyvotes/?id=497)), a Pennsylvania Republican, that Bush would have a hard time winning confirmation of any Supreme Court nominees who would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Roe%20v.%0AWade%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Roe%20v.%20Wade)) decision legalizing abortion.







Specter is expected to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Judiciary%20Committee%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Judiciary%20Committee)) with authority over judicial nominations. Rove said Specter has assured Bush that his nominees would receive a prompt hearing and those picked for an appellate court would receive a vote by the full Senate. Specter said on CBS that he had only been trying to point out that Republicans, while they expanded their Senate control in Tuesday's election, still lacked the Senate votes to overcome a united Democratic front.

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 07:14 PM
I am telling you, I saw him on TV yesterday and he acted as if he could do whatever he damn well pleases this time. He even answered a reporter in a smart ass way with "I don't have to answer that, I can answer only what I want to". Talk about already feeling the grip of what it must be like to be a dictator.

I really think the USA Shot itself in the ass this time. I'm gay, and I'm leaving. Before he makes it manditory that all of us that have alternative lifestyles get sent to either a mental institution because you know those backwards Christian fucks think homosexuality is a mental illness or worse he sends us to concentration camps.

And hey, you folks voted for it! Hope you enjoy your 4 years of fucking hell! :wavey:

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 07:15 PM
And for the record, even if I did stay here. That pencil dicked homophobe could never tell me my gf and I weren't married. Because in our eyes and the eyes of our friends/family we are. And we have wills which state everything I own is hers and vice versa. :nerner:

There are loopholes to everything Bush, EVERYTHING!

gentenaire
Nov 7th, 2004, 07:44 PM
All this is going way beyond merely opposing gay marriage. He seems almost frightened of it, terrified that gays might marry!

Bezz
Nov 7th, 2004, 07:57 PM
I think he needs to concentrate on more important things in America, like a war that he got thousands of people killed in, and the state of the american economy and stop trying to scapegoat all his problems by picking on a minority :rolleyes:.

Helas
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Shock!:rolleyes:

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:03 PM
People fear most, what they themselves are.
http://www.joked.com/content/2003/Jul2003/26/joked-dot-com-bush-cheney-naked.jpg

AjdeNate!
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:11 PM
I'm from a blue state.

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:13 PM
I'm from a red state, VA, but it was like 45% Kerry, and 50% Bush. The other 5% was split between the 2 other non-major parties.

Lee-Waters' Boy
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:20 PM
I'm gay, and I'm leaving.
:worship:
gee, if only leaving the US meant you couldn't post here, we'd all be happy

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Why Lee Waters Boy? You want all gays to leave the US now? You are such a homophobe. It's sad they let you stay around here and post, just because you are a Site Supporter.

BTW, how old are you? I want to know if I should watch CNN for your face when the draft gets reinstated? After all, you voted for it, you belong on the front lines. :woohoo:

Lee-Waters' Boy
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:27 PM
Why Lee Waters Boy? You want all gays to leave the US now? You are such a homophobe. It's sad they let you stay around here and post, just because you are a Site Supporter.

BTW, how old are you? I want to know if I should watch CNN for your face when the draft gets reinstated? After all, you voted for it, you belong on the front lines. :woohoo:
no problems with gays, i'd just prefer you leave..regardless of you or your girlfriend's sexuality
i'm 85, probably too old for the draft

AjdeNate!
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:28 PM
He's from a red state, Dani... he can't help it.

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:29 PM
Ah, so tell me, how you gonna feel when you have no more social security to collect and lose your medicine benefits? :hehehe: Better yet, are you happy to see your grandchildren over on the front lines within the next 2 years. Are they worth sacrificing so Bush can meet his blood lust?

85, lucky you, you'll probably die before Bush finishes his term and royally fucks us over.

And you are a homophobe, anyone calling anyone else a "dyke" or any degrading comment even once, proves you are homophobic.

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:30 PM
He's from a red state, Dani... he can't help it.

:lol: He's from the KING of red states, TEXAS. Home of Bush. By God, I wish we could sell Texas back to Mexico. At this point, I'd trade it, and everyone in it, back to them for a burito, a half stuffed taco, and a bottle of the cheapest tequila they have.

He's also a homophobe, so look out. He'd like to see all of us over there dying on the front lines.

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:32 PM
No, it's not because he's a site supporter, it's because homophobia is not considered on the same level as racism or other forms of hate.

Anyone who uses the N word is automatically banned, but you can use freely dyke and fag, at worst what you'll get is a week suspension.

I have a feeling, the likes of Lee Waters Boy, probably uses the N word on a freely basis as well.

Still, anyone that insults another individual because of how they are born, deserves to be banned from this board, or at least suspended for a week.

ys
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Pity, he didn't do it in his first term. If gay morons did not start all this fuss about gay marriage this year, we would have had a democratic president now.. Gays are the only reason Dems lost elections..

DevilishAttitude
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:36 PM
OMG something I agree with Bush over :eek: :eek: :eek:

Bezz
Nov 7th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Pity, he didn't do it in his first term. If gay morons did not start all this fuss about gay marriage this year, we would have had a democratic president now.. Gays are the only reason Dems lost elections..
No it was the upper class tight ass prejudice americans that think they know whats best for everyone who got that twat into power, if they werent so obsessed with gay peoples lives and issue that dont effect them then things could have been different :rolleyes:

alexusjonesfan
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:25 PM
yay, great time to find a hubby in the US. Marriage speeds up immigration dontchaknow ;)

shap_half
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:30 PM
Bush is an idiot. I really don't know what people are smoking

shap_half
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Pity, he didn't do it in his first term. If gay morons did not start all this fuss about gay marriage this year, we would have had a democratic president now.. Gays are the only reason Dems lost elections..

So gays should not speak up? Yeah?

CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:46 PM
OK, here are my thoughts on the issue...

1. You didn't hear gay people screaming they wanted to get married 50 years ago, or 5 years ago. We as a society have evolved over time on many different levels. Gays are now asking for the right to get married because we're at a place in time in our society where people are clearly ready to start bringing up the issue and start questioning why we're not allowed to. Straight people are asking the same thing too. So clearly we as a society are ready to take that step (at least in a fair number of states). So why are you, George W. Bush, as our president and the leader of this country, trying to get in the way of change? Not only is he getting in the way of change, but he's trying to push as back 50 years a society? Banning gay marriages, overturning Roe vs. Wade...I can't support somebody who is going to try and stand in the way of natural and evolutionary change.

2. I feel like this goes beyond the amendment. I feel like Bush is frightened...really and truly frightened about the prospect of gays getting married, as well as frightened about homosexuality in general

3. Whenever somebody says that support Bush, you are going to get a huge fuck you from me because he declared war on the gay community. Did anybody actually see the mailers the GOP sent out stating their views against gay marriage? People like the GOP and these crazy bible-thumping, overly religious conservative rednecks are bigots. They're no better than KKK members. Going to church on Sundays doesn't make them any less bigoted. Hate is hate no matter how you slice it.

4. There is absolutely no way I am going to sit here and let them tell me what I can and cannot do in my own state. If they don't want to see Janet's boob on TV, change the channel. But they sure as hell are not going to come to MY state and tell me how to live my life. I will love, marry, and fuck whomever I want as often as I want.

5.We're in a war, innocent people are dying every day over in Iraq, our economy is shit, people in our own country aren't getting enough to eat every day and aren't able to make ends meet, so much potential is going to waste...yet the ******s wanting to get married is somehow the biggest issue on our plate. I don't get it. I really and truly don't get it.

6. Stuff like these is why every other country in the world thinks we're fuckin nutjobs. I have friends studying abroad and the general perception of Americans is that we're crazy bible thumping, ultra conservative, intolerant rednecks. It's like when you percieve yourself in one way but a lot of other people percieve you in an entirely different light, there's definitely some credence to the overwhelming opinion no matter how much you may disagree with it. This is that situation on a far more grand scale.

cellophane
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:57 PM
yay, great time to find a hubby in the US. Marriage speeds up immigration dontchaknow ;)
Anyone heard of www.marryanamerican.ca (http://www.marryanamerican.ca) ? ;)

cellophane
Nov 7th, 2004, 10:00 PM
This is kind of funny in a sad way. :lol:

http://www.marryanamerican.ca/pledge/signed.php

gentenaire
Nov 7th, 2004, 10:09 PM
I have a question, hopefully this doesn't sound stupid: every time the issue of gun control pops up, they're saying that the constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms and the constitution is holy, you don't change it! Yet, when Bush wants to change it to ban gay marriage, there's no fuss about it. Is this a different part of the constitution, a more recent one maybe? Am I missing something?

CondiLicious
Nov 7th, 2004, 10:22 PM
Ugh! Karl Rove. The *real* President of the USA! :rolleyes: He's Bush's puppet master and when he's taking a break... sunning himself in the Bahamas laughing his smug ass off at how he's screwing over the world Paul Wolfowitz takes control of the Bush.

Kart
Nov 7th, 2004, 10:50 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

That's a shame.

The 'hopeful and decent' bit is rather insulting IMHO.

AjdeNate!
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:09 PM
Roe v. Wade will be out within the year that Rehnquist dies/retires.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:17 PM
Roe v. Wade will be out within the year that Rehnquist dies/retires.
Doesn't Bush realize that abortions will still take place whether or not he bans them? They'll just be underground and extremely dangerous. If a woman wants an abortion, you damn well better believe she's gonna get one at any cost.

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:26 PM
Abortions happened years and years before Roe vs Wade, and will continue to happen. Even if they have to cross the boarder to have them. He's just going to create a population problem that we cannot control! Hell the USA is broke ass enough without banning Abortion, if you ban it, it's sure to get worse.

Also, I wonder how Cheney's daughter feels about this shit? Certainly she must have a gf somewhere she would someday like to marry or be seen as wife and wife with. Ah, kinda makes me wonder if she didn't cast a vote for Kerry on Nov 2nd... Since your votes are secret. ;)

JustineTime
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:45 PM
Ballot measures in 11 states to ban gay marriages all passed last week.

Liberal states California and the People's Republic of Oregon voted 60% and 57% respectively against gay marriage.

Gay-rights groups have vowed to keep fighting for legal protections of same-sex relationships despite the election setbacks.

This is a lie only the liberal left extremists are buying into. Sodomy laws have already been stricken down, in Texas of all places. Same-sex relationships are in no danger, so there is no need to fight for "legal protection"; what they are really after is legal sanction of same-sex marriage. Labelling this as a civil rights issue is merely a smokescreen for what it really is: a blatant attack on the traditional American family. And just as We the People said no to lying liberal/Marxist traitor and admitted war criminal John Kerry, so We say "No, thank you" to the subversive screaming leftists waging a diligent, determined war on everything that is good in the United States.

So I take my :hatoff: to my fellow backwards ass Americans who have resoundingly, repeatedly, without exception, said an emphatic "NO!" to gay marriage. Unfortunately, due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, a Constitutional amendment looks like the only way to safeguard our way of life from judicial tryanny. :(

Next lefty lie, please! :rolleyes:

mboyle
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:45 PM
I'm from a red state, VA, but it was like 45% Kerry, and 50% Bush. The other 5% was split between the 2 other non-major parties.
try 54-46. Can't you get one fact straight, ever?

mboyle
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:47 PM
Liberal states People's Republic of Oregon

:lol: :lol: :lol: (dying on floor) OH! That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while! That just made my day!:D

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Well sorry about that kiddie, I guess the report in my local paper was wrong.

Still it was close. Too bad we didn't make it to a blue state. Then again too many red dotted moron fucks around here like you.

Did you piss your diapers because you didn't get to vote this time? :haha:

mboyle
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Doesn't Bush realize that abortions will still take place whether or not he bans them? They'll just be underground and extremely dangerous. If a woman wants an abortion, you damn well better believe she's gonna get one at any cost.
right, and, if she dies in the process, that's her choice too. Murders still happen, don't they? Should we legalize murder? Drunk Driving still happens, etc...

mboyle
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:50 PM
I guess the report in my local paper was wrong.
right, because I am so convinced that you read legit newspapers all the time:rolleyes: ...What was this newspaper called, "The Virginia Communist Fact-Shredder"?

JustineTime
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:50 PM
I take it back: a lot more than liberal left extremists are buying into that lie. :tears:

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:51 PM
So according to mboyle, world scholar and ancient elder of knowing all things. A Womans right to choose is to choose on if she wants to die during an illegal abortion or keep the baby and ruin 2 lives. What a choice, and I thought women had made it out of the darkages.

Hope you wear a condom everytime you have sex mboyle (if you ever get any), wouldn't want you making a mistake and getting some poor girl pregnant. God knows, nobody would want to carry on your seed. She might die during the banned abortion!

Bacardi
Nov 7th, 2004, 11:52 PM
right, because I am so convinced that you read legit newspapers all the time:rolleyes: ...What was this newspaper called, "The Virginia Communist Fact-Shredder"?

I'd rather be a Commie than a Bush Supporter!

He's gonna be assasinated within 2 years anyhow. :devil: :bounce: :yeah:

Actually it's the Kingsport Times News, http://www.timesnews.net

ys
Nov 8th, 2004, 01:11 AM
So gays should not speak up? Yeah?


It is not about speaking up. It is about winning the cause.. Do you understand? Speaking up the demand is not the goal. Achieving is. Winning gay marriage cause right away at this point of time was unrealistic. But increasing the chances for it to be won in future was possible. But we needed a democratic president for that. Morons who tried to champion the gay marriage idea now were playing into the hands of conservatives..

There is a hell of progress achieved in gay rights area in last 30-40 years.. But requesting all of that, say, 100 years ago would not work and would only harm in long term. Progress has to be gradual. People's minds have to get used to things that are not there right now. Break that rule and you get yourself a setback. You got that setback. Do you understand?

Requesting the radical changes is always a huge risk of not achieving any changes at all, because most of people are not radical, most of people are conservative in the most wide sense of this word - and that is natural, and that is good, because revolutions cost lives.

Trying to achieve gay marriage in 2004 gave the whole cause at least a 4-year setback. Maybe even 8. Maybe even 12. Because Democratic candidate's chances in next few elections will only decrease after this loss.

Trying to legalise gay marriage in the home state of Democratic presidential candidate was not just a mistake. It was a sabotage. It was a provocation.

polishprodigy
Nov 8th, 2004, 01:49 AM
Its really interesting....

Canada pushed through legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, even though half the country (if not more) DOES NOT support it. But since we have a more central government, the law will be applied across the nation.

Here you have in the USA, state governments. So even if Bush wanted the constitution to ban gay marriage, couldn't states like Vermont and Massachusetts choose to disregard this federal legislation anyway? I thought it was up to the states and not the federal government? Thats why 11 states had referendums on gay marriage, wasn't it?

Infiniti2001
Nov 8th, 2004, 02:15 AM
Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term -Aide

Well that's the least of our problems. He has to do that to keep duping the fraidy cats that voted for him while voting staggering tax increases to them, taking their jobs away, removing their access to affordable health care and destroying secure retirement. Thanks, "Christian" dupes. Can't say he doesn't have his priorities straight :haha: pun intended.

jbone_0307
Nov 8th, 2004, 02:23 AM
Arent there other more important issues than this.

Couver
Nov 8th, 2004, 03:20 AM
right, and, if she dies in the process, that's her choice too. Murders still happen, don't they? Should we legalize murder? Drunk Driving still happens, etc...

Bradshaw's point is that many women don't want over bearing strangers telling them what they can do with THEIR OWN BODIES! So they will find a way to get abortions. Bush making it illegal is what will lead to more deaths because he's forced them into unsafe practices.

Women should have the right to choose what they do with their reproductive rights. Bush just wants to send the women's movement reeling back to the stone age.

Well to all the pro choice women in the states don't worry, you guys can just head north. We'll help you out!

Crazy Canuck
Nov 8th, 2004, 05:40 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: (dying on floor) OH! That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while! That just made my day!:D
Oh, mboyle. You aren't nearly as crazy as JT.... don't feed it... that would be like me feeding Bacardi... ;)

Crazy Canuck
Nov 8th, 2004, 05:41 AM
right, and, if she dies in the process, that's her choice too. Murders still happen, don't they? Should we legalize murder? Drunk Driving still happens, etc...
Remind me why you're against abortion?

ys
Nov 8th, 2004, 05:48 AM
Remind me why you're against abortion?
Because he knows that if his parents would be pro-choice, he would not have been born in first place..

Crazy Canuck
Nov 8th, 2004, 05:54 AM
Because he knows that if his parents would be pro-choice, he would not have been born in first place..
Zing! That sounds like something that my brother used to tell me ;)

But no, really, I'm interested in his response. I'm not going to slam him for it.

Mateo Mathieu
Nov 8th, 2004, 06:11 AM
What is a decent society? :lol:

Kesalauantait
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:14 AM
Liberal states California and the People's Republic of Oregon voted 60% and 57% respectively against gay marriage.



This is a lie only the liberal left extremists are buying into. Sodomy laws have already been stricken down, in Texas of all places. Same-sex relationships are in no danger, so there is no need to fight for "legal protection"; what they are really after is legal sanction of same-sex marriage.

Labelling this as a civil rights issue is merely a smokescreen for what it really is: a blatant attack on the traditional American family. And just as We the People said no to lying liberal/Marxist traitor and admitted war criminal John Kerry, so We say "No, thank you" to the subversive screaming leftists waging a diligent, determined war on everything that is good in the United States.



Wow.

How is it an attack on the traditional American family? The "traditional" American family always has been and always will be a man and woman.

How is it an attack on this if two people who love and care for each other wish to marry? You make it sound like gays are against straight marriages, when I am sure gay people are for straight marriages just as much as they are for gay ones.

Of course it's a civil rights issue. If I lived in America I wouldn't be able to marry my boyfriend because I am gay, whereas I would be able to marry my girlfriend if I was straight.

That seems simple enough to me.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:23 AM
Good post, Kesalauantait. The more of JT's posts that you read, the more you'll be able to see what an extremely sick individual this is.

jojoseph
Nov 8th, 2004, 09:27 AM
I wish we could seek to ban George Bush in the second term.

Femme Fatale
Nov 8th, 2004, 09:46 AM
I wish we could seek to ban George Bush in the second term.

Why don't you PM or start a thread asking Griffin to ban him :D

chapel
Nov 8th, 2004, 10:15 AM
isn't this 1 of the reasons why bush won? coz he has morals. the practicing christians all went out to vote for him.

...........not saying here that gays and lesbians are immoral but that's how they label bush.

bionic71
Nov 8th, 2004, 11:29 AM
Wow.

How is it an attack on the traditional American family? The "traditional" American family always has been and always will be a man and woman.

How is it an attack on this if two people who love and care for each other wish to marry? You make it sound like gays are against straight marriages, when I am sure gay people are for straight marriages just as much as they are for gay ones.

Of course it's a civil rights issue. If I lived in America I wouldn't be able to marry my boyfriend because I am gay, whereas I would be able to marry my girlfriend if I was straight.

That seems simple enough to me.Exactly...
All people being able to decide whether they want to marry or not.
Gay people should afforded the same rights as all other citizens....the choice to marry is one such right.
Why should a gay couple concede to a civil union if they want to marry....
Why should a gay couple have to go through often expensive legal avenues to secure property rights, superannuation entitlements etc
What should sexual orientation have to do with a couple deciding to enter into a life long commitment.

I am gay...I have no interest in marrying my partner of 10 years. My partner and I do not need such validation (our family and friends do that or us everyday)...however if a marriage means that we do not have to go through complex and expensive legal procedures to ensure we are viewed in the same legal light as a non-gay couple, then we would consider it. That said, many gay people do feel a need to validate their commitment with a marriage, and they should be granted the right to make such a decision.

The absurdity of it all is...that as a man that I could go and marry a woman tomorrow...I could even marry a gay woman tomorrow...in a church...and it would be presumed legitimate and legal. However, the notion of marrying my same sex partner of 10 years is somehow a representation of moral decay...

Democracy???....Separation of church and state.....all citizens afforded equal rights....mmmmmm.

skanky~skanketta
Nov 8th, 2004, 02:09 PM
the power-tripping freak!

for all those homosexuals who voted for him....serves u right!

foir those who didn't. :mad: i'm sorry for u guys.

TimBo
Nov 8th, 2004, 06:07 PM
This is a funny email I just received. Thought it fit well in this thread....



Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "In the eyes of God, marriage is between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example,

I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination . . . end of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's laws and how to follow them:

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 a man is allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness--Leviticus 15:19-24. The problem is, most women take offense when they're asked if they're unclean.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord--Leviticus 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 that 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 (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Leviticus 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 this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27.
How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

AjdeNate!
Nov 8th, 2004, 06:39 PM
:yeah:

Lee-Waters' Boy
Nov 8th, 2004, 07:03 PM
lol thats great :worship:

CJ07
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:20 PM
This is a funny email I just received. Thought it fit well in this thread....



Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "In the eyes of God, marriage is between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example,

I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination . . . end of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's laws and how to follow them:

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 a man is allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness--Leviticus 15:19-24. The problem is, most women take offense when they're asked if they're unclean.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord--Leviticus 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 that 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 (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Leviticus 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 this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27.
How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?


:rolleyes:
I don't even know how to respond to this, I mean where do I start? :shrug:
Does no one else see how rediculous it is?

Rocketta
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:42 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't even know how to respond to this, I mean where do I start? :shrug:
Does no one else see how rediculous it is?so what are you saying that those things aren't in the bible? I don't see how you don't get the point....which is not that we should do those things but that clearly we dont' take every word of the bible seriously yet *we* do about this subject.

Martian Willow
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:54 PM
It was mildly amusing the first time.

Kart
Nov 8th, 2004, 09:07 PM
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27.
How should they die?

LOL.

OUT!
Nov 8th, 2004, 09:13 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't even know how to respond to this, I mean where do I start? :shrug:
Does no one else see how rediculous it is?No as others have said here and before - if "Christians" are willing to condemn homosexuals based upon Biblical teaching, then they should be a little consistent and condemn and/or forbid the practices highlighted by TimBo.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 8th, 2004, 11:17 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't even know how to respond to this, I mean where do I start? :shrug:
Does no one else see how rediculous it is?
I found it amusing, which was more or less the point.

ys
Nov 8th, 2004, 11:35 PM
I found it amusing, which was more or less the point.

I am afraid that true Bush supporters might not be familiar with this concept ( of "amusing" )

jojoseph
Nov 9th, 2004, 12:05 AM
isn't this 1 of the reasons why bush won? coz he has morals. the practicing christians all went out to vote for him.

...........not saying here that gays and lesbians are immoral but that's how they label bush.I'm afraid not. What people fail to realize is that Kerry is actually against gay marriage. But he's for gay rights.

About Bush and morals. You can claim to go to church all night and day, but it's not going to church that means you have a good heart and believe in God. It's what you do that counts.

Yes, Bush is against gay marriage. Yes, Bush is against stem cell research, but what about other stuff mainstream Christians are for? Do you really think that Republicans are for the poor? Come on, Bush has been as against the poor as any president in US history. How do you think Bush pays for all these tax cuts? He cuts programs among many other things. Yes, some of us save in taxes, but others hurt. Yes, the Republicans made sure to broadcast how much Bush supposedly goes to church. Big whooptie-do. It's what he practices that matters. And all those that voted for him 'cause he "supposedly" has "morals" need to take a long hard look at the person they voted into office if that's why they voted for him.

Gerri
Nov 9th, 2004, 12:16 AM
[QUOTE=jojoseph]

About Bush and morals. You can claim to go to church all night and day, but it's not going to church that means you have a good heart and believe in God. It's what you do that counts.

QUOTE]

You're right. He's supposed to have such high moral values, he's so pro-life and yet also pro the death penalty. I've never understood that one. People with real morals care about other people, respect their environment and don't try to marginalise others just because they're different. Haven't seen much of that from GW yet.

Scotso
Nov 9th, 2004, 01:04 AM
Its really interesting....

Canada pushed through legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, even though half the country (if not more) DOES NOT support it. But since we have a more central government, the law will be applied across the nation.

Here you have in the USA, state governments. So even if Bush wanted the constitution to ban gay marriage, couldn't states like Vermont and Massachusetts choose to disregard this federal legislation anyway? I thought it was up to the states and not the federal government? Thats why 11 states had referendums on gay marriage, wasn't it?


I don't believe anyone answered your question. Yes, as of now, marriage laws are mostly the domain of the state governments. But our national constitution says that states only possess the powers that are not given to the national government. They can, at any time, amend the constitution to give another power to the national government. Of course, some argue that the constitution doesn't give our government the right to expand in many areas, marriage laws being one of them. But who knows, they get away with pretty much whatever they want to do.

However, the process for amending our constitution is rather detailed. It requires passage by 2/3rds vote of the Senate (and House?) and also requires the majority vote of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. While the House would probably pass it because all of them seem nuts, it would have serious problems getting 2/3rds vote in the Senate. 44 of the 100 are Democrats, and only 3 of those are positioned to vote for the amendment (Byrd of West Virginia is one). There are also 4 or 5 Republicans that would likely vote against the amendment (John McCain, the two women senators from Maine who are fairly liberal, and some other northeastern Republican senators.) If by some fluke it passed in the Senate, I seriously doubt that the more liberal state legislatures would pass it. Even those against gay marriage may see the danger in allowing the national government to take away any rights that the states have had for hundreds of years.

In short, Bush is doing this only because he said he would and doesn't want to look like a hypocrite. History will see him as an ideological idiot who pushed for this right-wing agenda even knowing it had no chance to pass.

This national attack on gay marriage is the most pathetic sight I have seen in my few years on this planet.

If the amendment did pass, the states could not disregard it. The national government has ways to pull the states in line. For instance, even though the national government says that the states can determine the drinking age, they refuse government funding to any state that doesn't set it at at least 21. They abuse their power rather frequently using their control of the money.

And to address your statement that half the country of Canada doesn't support gay marriage. Well, if a majority of the people needed to support something for it to be law, the United States would still be a British colony. We would still have slavery. Hitler would be ruling all of Europe, etc. etc. The principle of a democratic government is "majority rules, minority rights." If you forget this, you have nothing but a tyranny of the majority. I fear that our nation is falling into the latter.

Fingon
Nov 9th, 2004, 01:13 AM
And for the record, even if I did stay here. That pencil dicked homophobe could never tell me my gf and I weren't married. Because in our eyes and the eyes of our friends/family we are. And we have wills which state everything I own is hers and vice versa. :nerner:

There are loopholes to everything Bush, EVERYTHING!
you are a girl? :eek:

JLDementieva
Nov 9th, 2004, 03:30 AM
Seriously, Americans have always said they are a country of freedom, liberty and rights. By denying gay people to get married, they are totally contradicting themselves!!!!!!! People are against gay marriage for religious reasons anyways, and isn't there suppose to be a separation of church and state?
It's outrageous how they say one thing and do another!
I think the gay population is like 10%, and it's such a pity that the other 90% of the people gets a say on whether gay people should get married or not?
I don't see why people are so damn against it anyways, I mean it doesn't affect me at all if 2 gay or lesbian people get married, I'm still me, nothing's changed for me.

RYNJ
Nov 9th, 2004, 05:06 AM
A lot of people tell me there against gay marriahe because god forbids it, but god also forbids a lot of other things. But just because there hetrosexuals they should get away with it.

1. No man shall marry a woman that has been previously married… Matthew 5:32


2. No widow shall marry (unless it’s her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives….1 Timothy 5:5-15. (Going to be a lot of lonely widows out there that will never be happy again)


3. People of different races are not allowed to marry….Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27.


4. Christians and non-Christians can not marry…. 2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.


5. A minister is not allowed to marry to a woman other than a virgin…Leviticus 21:13-14


6. A rapist is required to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

It seems like it's the God-Given-Right of every Christian to pick the parts of the Bible they like and leave out the parts that they don't.

There sure are a lot of consititutional ammendments to look forward to if Bush wants to invoke biblical insanity into american law.

polishprodigy
Nov 9th, 2004, 05:19 AM
I don't believe anyone answered your question. Yes, as of now, marriage laws are mostly the domain of the state governments. But our national constitution says that states only possess the powers that are not given to the national government. They can, at any time, amend the constitution to give another power to the national government. Of course, some argue that the constitution doesn't give our government the right to expand in many areas, marriage laws being one of them. But who knows, they get away with pretty much whatever they want to do.

However, the process for amending our constitution is rather detailed. It requires passage by 2/3rds vote of the Senate (and House?) and also requires the majority vote of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. While the House would probably pass it because all of them seem nuts, it would have serious problems getting 2/3rds vote in the Senate. 44 of the 100 are Democrats, and only 3 of those are positioned to vote for the amendment (Byrd of West Virginia is one). There are also 4 or 5 Republicans that would likely vote against the amendment (John McCain, the two women senators from Maine who are fairly liberal, and some other northeastern Republican senators.) If by some fluke it passed in the Senate, I seriously doubt that the more liberal state legislatures would pass it. Even those against gay marriage may see the danger in allowing the national government to take away any rights that the states have had for hundreds of years.

In short, Bush is doing this only because he said he would and doesn't want to look like a hypocrite. History will see him as an ideological idiot who pushed for this right-wing agenda even knowing it had no chance to pass.

This national attack on gay marriage is the most pathetic sight I have seen in my few years on this planet.

If the amendment did pass, the states could not disregard it. The national government has ways to pull the states in line. For instance, even though the national government says that the states can determine the drinking age, they refuse government funding to any state that doesn't set it at at least 21. They abuse their power rather frequently using their control of the money.

And to address your statement that half the country of Canada doesn't support gay marriage. Well, if a majority of the people needed to support something for it to be law, the United States would still be a British colony. We would still have slavery. Hitler would be ruling all of Europe, etc. etc. The principle of a democratic government is "majority rules, minority rights." If you forget this, you have nothing but a tyranny of the majority. I fear that our nation is falling into the latter.
I agree with you on some key points, but I think the concern in Canada was the speed that the bill was rushed through, and how it was done with little consultation with the nation and other parties. I suppose one could say , what consultation was needed, but I donno, the only reason why it is passing in Canada is because with our electoral system, the country's government is decided by Ontario and Quebec, two provinces which tend on the most part to be more liberal than other areas. And that is why in Canada, although a touchy issue, it wasn't as tough to pass as it would be in the USA. There are still many issues with the law, and its application and other minor points.

Btw, We had a councillor from Toronto say that "Canada is now 20 years ahead of the USA in terms of human rights", an "interesting" comment.

alexusjonesfan
Nov 9th, 2004, 06:18 AM
I agree with you on some key points, but I think the concern in Canada was the speed that the bill was rushed through, and how it was done with little consultation with the nation and other parties. I suppose one could say , what consultation was needed, but I donno, the only reason why it is passing in Canada is because with our electoral system, the country's government is decided by Ontario and Quebec, two provinces which tend on the most part to be more liberal than other areas. And that is why in Canada, although a touchy issue, it wasn't as tough to pass as it would be in the USA. There are still many issues with the law, and its application and other minor points.

Btw, We had a councillor from Toronto say that "Canada is now 20 years ahead of the USA in terms of human rights", an "interesting" comment.

Huh? The Canadian decision started off with the highcourts of BC, Ontario and Quebec deciding that not allowing same-sex marriages was against the Charter, not because it was voted in by some electorate (none of those judges were voted in either). The official Supreme Court decision has been deferred for a year so nothing is decided yet. Like other minority rights issues in this country's past, it's a legal issue, not a democratic one. The last Maclean's poll showed that over 50% of all of Canada was against the granting of equal status to same-sex marriages, so it wouldn't pass if put on some national referrendum. The whole point is that it isn't something that ought to be decided via polling of the population.

Bacardi
Nov 9th, 2004, 06:45 AM
you are a girl? :eek:

Yep :wavey:

jelena4me
Nov 9th, 2004, 08:19 AM
As we all know the anglican church worldwide faces a potential split, as some factions (in africa and the US in particular) can tolerate gay marriage.

But this group of selectly bigoted people is not just divided on this issue, but many anglicans are still struggling to admit women to any form of power in their organisation either (despite the fact that the Queen is the head of the church of england!!!)

I really find it amazing that anyone can have anything to do with these "groups".
And lets not pretend that certain other key religions are any better.




"Men-only branch' plan for Church"



The Anglican church could set up a 'male clergy only' branch under proposals aimed at ending the row over whether women can be bishops. The new province, with its own archbishop, is one of several options set out in the Church of England report which was published on Tuesday. Another option was to continue to allow women as priests but ban them from being ordained as bishops.................

Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3973787.stm

polishprodigy
Nov 9th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Huh? The Canadian decision started off with the highcourts of BC, Ontario and Quebec deciding that not allowing same-sex marriages was against the Charter, not because it was voted in by some electorate (none of those judges were voted in either). The official Supreme Court decision has been deferred for a year so nothing is decided yet. Like other minority rights issues in this country's past, it's a legal issue, not a democratic one. The last Maclean's poll showed that over 50% of all of Canada was against the granting of equal status to same-sex marriages, so it wouldn't pass if put on some national referrendum. The whole point is that it isn't something that ought to be decided via polling of the population.
Sorry, I wish to clarify. I know all of what you said, I was just saying that Quebeckers on the majority support it, and support for same-sex marriage is higher in Ontario than in other provinces like Alberta, so it wouldn't be THAT much of a political disaster to carry through with this legislation.

JustineTime
Nov 20th, 2004, 08:00 PM
No as others have said here and before - if "Christians" are willing to :confused: condemn (???) :confused: homosexuals based upon Biblical teaching, then they should be a little consistent and condemn and/or forbid the practices highlighted by TimBo.
Rom. 1:22-26 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

John 8:10-11 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. :)

Kesalauantait
Nov 20th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Romans was written by Paul, who was not divine. He was a human, with human opinions. If it weren't for the scholars centuries after Jesus' death who compiled the bible, his letters would not even have been included in the New Testament.

Next.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 01:43 AM
Romans was written by Paul, who was not divine. He was a human, with human opinions. If it weren't for the scholars centuries after Jesus' death who compiled the bible, his letters would not even have been included in the New Testament.

Next.
2 Peter 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. ;) For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. :angel:

Kesalauantait
Nov 21st, 2004, 06:54 AM
2 Peter 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. ;) For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. :angel:

Christianity arose within Judaism. The earliest Christians, were Jews, so their hopes and expectations of a Messiah foretold in Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. These Christians already understood what 'scripture' was, and how to use it in the context of teaching and worship from their Jewish roots. Consequently, the formation of 'scripture' to be used for teaching and worship of the Christian faith was a logical requirement. The review of Christian writings to determine what was 'scripture'; that is valid, authoritative and holy led to the development of the New Testament and can be seen in three major stages: 1) the rise of Christian literature to the status of scripture, 2) the conscious grouping of various writings into collections, and 3) the revision and approval of these collections as a 'New Testament' - this being called a 'canon'. Canon comes from the Greek word 'kanon' meaning measuring rule. Only certain books passed the measuring rules required for 'canonization'.

No original author wrote their works with the intent of them becoming 'scripture'. Marcion was the first to have published a formal canon list in about 140 A.D.. It consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's letters. A number of other letters, Acts of various apostles, and other writings began to circulate at this time. Some supported various groups of the time including the Montanists, Gnostics, Docetists, and others who were later declared to be heresies. Irenaeus declared that there could only be four gospels and the Muratorian Canon was soon published which included the four Gospels, thirteen letters of Paul, two letters of John, Jude, Revelation, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Revelation of Peter (somewhat contested). The book of Hebrews was not included, although widely used and discussed even by Clement much earlier. The list of books in the canon continued to be debated throughout the third century until Eusebius published a list at the beginning of the fourth century. Books still in question included James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude. Another canon was released by concensus in 367 A.D. which names the 27 books we know today. Additional books, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, and the Letter of Barnabas were considered suitable for study but not as scripture. This last list of books was finally accepted by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D..

theklein
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:45 AM
Yeh Bush is gay, literally aswell.

jelena4me
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:35 AM
Romans was written by Paul, who was not divine. He was a human, with human opinions. If it weren't for the scholars centuries after Jesus' death who compiled the bible, his letters would not even have been included in the New Testament.

Next.
Paul was one major bigot and the catholic church is essentially his. The church does seem rather too interested in what paul said rather than Jesus.

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:44 AM
Paul was one major bigot and the catholic church is essentially his. The church does seem rather too interested in what paul said rather than Jesus.
That's because they want to believe what they want to believe. They have an opinion or prejudice and they look in the Bible to back their opinion up. It's like with homosexuality. Nevermind that Jesus doesn't say anything against it. They found someone who was against it in the Bible - in the Old Testament.

It really is a shame how a religion has been used and abused for personal gain and prejudices by a group of people.

The crusaders used it, Hitler used it and modern day Christian right conservatives are using it. :shrug:

jelena4me
Nov 21st, 2004, 09:28 AM
Couldnt agree more

nash
Nov 22nd, 2004, 06:30 PM
They found someone who was against it in the Bible - in the Old Testament.

Pssst. Paul's teachings are in the New Testament...

Nagyovafan
Nov 22nd, 2004, 07:54 PM
I am not going to talk about President Bush because linguists have not yet invented a word that describes the fiery hate that I have for him.

It's just writing discrimination back into the Constitution!

RVD
Nov 22nd, 2004, 09:04 PM
What a wonderful discussion! And to think that I share the same views as many here. :bounce: And so many great points made too.

I was wondering if anyone here has read 'The Da Vinci Code' and viewed 'The Da Vinci Code Decoded'? And what you thought of the idea of (modern) Christianity being a hybrid of pagan religions (being created during the reign of Constantine), and how Christinity was used to manipulate the populance. Basically, the same ploy utilized in this last election. :eek:

Personally, 'The Da Vinci Code Decoded' answered almost every question I had concerning some inconsistencies in the New Testament. :angel:

P.S.
I found it humorous to discover that Peter would be considered 'The Father of Male Chauvinism', or the 'sexist' disciple.' :lol:

jelena4me
Nov 23rd, 2004, 10:18 AM
What a wonderful discussion! And to think that I share the same views as many here. :bounce: And so many great points made too.

I was wondering if anyone here has read 'The Da Vinci Code' and viewed 'The Da Vinci Code Decoded'? And what you thought of the idea of (modern) Christianity being a hybrid of pagan religions (being created during the reign of Constantine), and how Christinity was used to manipulate the populance. Basically, the same ploy utilized in this last election. :eek:

Personally, 'The Da Vinci Code Decoded' answered almost every question I had concerning some inconsistencies in the New Testament. :angel:

P.S.
I found it humorous to discover that Peter would be considered 'The Father of Male Chauvinism', or the 'sexist' disciple.' :lol:
The Da Vinci code has some interesting points, but is much fiction. The "Priory of Sion" in particular has been proved to be a hoax.

However, I am quite convinced that Christianity is a hybrid of "pagan" religions, used to manipulate the populace.

Tochio
Nov 23rd, 2004, 06:11 PM
:tape:

canadian_bass_2
Nov 23rd, 2004, 09:34 PM
I just spent the past 30 minutes reading through all three pages that are currently up, and I'm glad to see that when some major issue is sparked here on wta, no one is afraid to speak up.

First things first: I do not, nor have I ever really followed a specific religion. I think that all religions have their up and down sides. My basic thoughts on life are to treat other people with the same respect and dignity you would like to be treated. It's not fair to say that all of Christianity is a bad thing. If it helps you, then follow it. If not, don't stand there and mock it.

Second, don't throw scripture around. No one will ever "win." The bible is full of loopholes, just like every other set of laws.

Now, onto the actual subject.

I am gay. I would like to hope that one day, if I had a partner that was ready and willing, that we could at least have the option of getting married. I am in no way against straight marriage, that would just be foolish. I just want everyone to be as happy as they can possibly be, while still adhereing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If that means by marriage, then there should be the option. You may argue with me until you're blue in the face, but I stand by that idea. I do my best to try and not discriminate against peoples religions, race, sex, gender, age...and I do falter sometimes; but I am only human.

To ban gay marriage is to deny a group from feeling as though they belong in society, and you can slice it any way you want, but that is discrimination.