atinymonkey Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 .......he's so blatantly homophobic? President Bush, who is a Methodist Christian, suggested that gay people should not be allowed to wed. How can you represent the people if you don't believe in the basic right to formally express love? Same sex marrage is not a premise that's way out there (like polygamy, which is legal in some US states), it's a fact of life in the modern life. Not going into the warmongering, alcoholic stupidity of the man. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3110581.stm
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 'George' is a homosexual name, he's just like that pink hippo.
JaKiri Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 He's not representing the people, he's representing the States.
greg1917 Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Seeing as he wasnt actually elected I dont see why he's under any obligation to answer to the American people. Why should someone who commited gross electoral fraud bother to represent the people who voted for the other guy? What does he owe them?
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 (like polygamy, which is legal in some US states) Polygamy is a felony in many states, and illegal in all 50 states. The polygamy battle is what declared that marriage is state-defined, not defined by consenting individuals. I do believe that many people in the United States still feel that homosexual is morally wrong. George Bush, being Methodist, is morally bound by what the Bible says about homosexuality. I wouldn't necessarily call this homophobic. They are not being denied a fundamental right, nor are they being denied the right to express their love in public or in private.
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 What exactly does the bible say about it? And is the exact text of the methodist bible any different to, say, the anglican bible? I think it's important we know what it says before we start the whole "oh but that's not what it says in the bible!" argument thing again.
greg1917 Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 But they are being denied the right to hold legal status as partners which brings with it several financial implications. Its clearly denying gay people rights to which the rest of the heterosexual married population take for granted.
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Why should someone who commited gross electoral fraud bother to represent the people who voted for the other guy? Is there any evidence for gross electoral fraud? The United States does not elect Presidents by the majority of popular vote. This has never been the case. According to the highest court in the land, George Bush is the legal president.
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 No, the methodist Bible isn't any different. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites... will inherit the kingdom of heaven." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Those are the two main verses that speak of homosexuality. While neither of these forbid homosexual marriage explicitly, it should be obvious that the Bible is not in support of homosexuality. However, this is not saying to be homophobic.
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 But they are being denied the right to hold legal status as partners which brings with it several financial implications. Actually in the states it costs more to be married. There was a couple recently that had been married 40 some odd years and decided to divorce but still live together because they could not afford to stay married. I see your point though.
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by blike Actually in the states it costs more to be married. There was a couple recently that had been married 40 some odd years and decided to divorce but still live together because they could not afford to stay married. I believe he is referring to insurance, inheritance rights etc.
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Who is narrating in those passages? Paul was narrating both. There is actually a denomination of homosexual Christians. I'm not sure what they think of those verses, but one I spoke to thought paul was a raging homophobic. Paul is actually the only one in the new testament who speaks against homosexuality. It is not mentioned in any of the other new testament books.
greg1917 Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Michael Moore presents loads of evidence in Stupid White Men. He only tells one side of the story but the electoral fruad still occured.
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Michael Moore? I wonder if it was as accurate as his bowling for columbine "documentary".
greg1917 Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 The bit about electoral fruad is actually the only reliable bit in Stupid White Men though. Moore is an appalling researcher and any other agendas he pushes are badly written and in some cases downright lies. That being the case I do support his argument for the electoral farce of Gore vs bush.
blike Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 I guess I should do some research into it before I spout off my opinion. I havn't seen his side of the argument yet, so I dunno.
atinymonkey Posted July 31, 2003 Author Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by blike Polygamy is a felony in many states, and illegal in all 50 states. The polygamy battle is what declared that marriage is state-defined, not defined by consenting individuals. I was aware of the ongoing battle of congress to outlaw the practice of Polygamy, but I was under the impression this could not be enforced on those people within a faith that allows polygamy. For instance the crazy Morman's can still have more than one wife, due to the big loophole that is the Bill of Rights. Effectivley making it legal. Aside from all that, I'm not convinced the Bible speaks out against boy on boy or girl on girl lovin' directly, but does speak out against it in certain situations (like Sodom & Gomorrah) where the lovin' is not vindicated by God by right of marrage. It's all a matter of interpretation, however is was common in medieval time for priests to engage in a bit of gender specific romance. It wasn't frowned upon much at the time. The interpretation of the bible to be against homosexuality only kicked in during the 19th century, so far as I remember. I'll look into it.
Star-struck Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 Government today is far removed from being representative of it's people. Politicians are not supposed to decide what is right and wrong. They are supposed to act on behalf of their constituency. If their personal view just happens to coincide with the majority opinion of their constituency then great! If not then they should act on behalf of their constituency vice satisfying their own agendas. So what if President Bush doesn't like homosexuality. Who cares what the Pope thinks! God and politics have no place at each other's tables. Religious freedom also means freedom from religion.
atinymonkey Posted July 31, 2003 Author Posted July 31, 2003 Well said. I agree on the whole with your opinion. It's just a shame that the world doesn't work as it should. Bush should be more subjective about the admission of inflamatory viewpoints, and keep personal adjendas out of his role. The man's views should not condem sections of the population, but facilitate the intergration of the groups. Perhaps if someone were to explain that to the guy? I wonder what happened to the idea of America as a melting pot for cultures.
-Demosthenes- Posted March 13, 2004 Posted March 13, 2004 I was aware of the ongoing battle of congress to outlaw the practice of Polygamy, but I was under the impression this could not be enforced on those people within a faith that allows polygamy. For instance the crazy Morman's can still have more than one wife, due to the big loophole that is the Bill of Rights. Effectivley making it legal. That was over a hundred years ago, the people who do now may consider themselves Mormon but the LDS Church does not consider them part of the Church. The people of the era when it was practiced had their reasons for practicing it. Many of the men of the church were being killed by the mobs who where afraid of the Mormon people. Some of the women and children were without fathers and husbands and without anyone to take care of them. So God told Joseph Smith that they needed to practice polygamy. It was later deemed no longer needed. Many saints never practiced it, and many of Brigham Young's wives he merely took care of. The most he ever did was shake their hand. The warped form of polygamy practiced today is not sanctioned by the church in any way.
fafalone Posted March 13, 2004 Posted March 13, 2004 It's not a loophole, it's a clear statement that consenting adults acting in accordance with their faith with other consenting adults should be afforded the same rights as those of any other faith.
MishMish Posted March 13, 2004 Posted March 13, 2004 Fafalone: "It's not a loophole" It's also incorrect, as has been pointed out. Polygamy is illegal in the States, whether one wants to argue it should be or not is another matter In addition, am not even sure the religious argument would apply. I know of no religion which defines polygamy as a religious requirement. And if there is such a religion, am still not sure that would be sufficient. I rather doubt anyone would be allowed to practice human sacrifice as an article of their religiouos faith, even if obliatory to that religion. So I am not convinced that simply being a religious requirement trumps all current laws I would say that if polygamy were granted as an option for adherents of some faiths, however, it should be granted to all as an option. None of which is to make any personal statement on polygamy itself
fafalone Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 Well, since the human being sacrificed is most likely not a consenting party, it's an invalid argument and just yet another evasion of choices between consenting adults...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now