Bush plans to ammend the Constitution

[Perndog]

He'd be a lot cooler if he did.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.

Well? Did he specifically mention that rule as null and void?

How about adulterous women? Should we still stone them to death?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm pissed about this. I've been saying all week that this is what it would take for Bush/Rove to deflate a Roy Moore 3rd party run, and he went and did it.....

Oh, and I'm against the proposed legislation, too. :/

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Well? Did he specifically mention that rule as null and void?

How about adulterous women? Should we still stone them to death?

Holy shit, you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of the story where Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adultress to death? Thats where we get the saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That exact fucking story.

Do you actually want to have a real discussion or are you interested in only antagonizing people with faith in something greater than themselves to feed some bullshit pretentious attitude of your?

If its the former, fine. I may not have all the answers(I am sure I don't) but I will do my best to satisfy your inquiries.

If its the latter, I'll be ingoring you from now on.

[Big Papa Goat]

He didn't specifically knock out the pork thing. When one of his disciples was going to eat without washing his hands (or some weird jewish ritual or somehting like that) Jesus said that it was not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him that makes him clean or unclean. I think thats how it went down. I know that statement is in the bible anyway.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Holy shit, you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of the story where Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adultress to death? Thats where we get the saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That exact fucking story.

Do you actually want to have a real discussion or are you interested in only antagonizing people with faith in something greater than themselves to feed some bullshit pretentious attitude of your?

If its the former, fine. I may not have all the answers(I am sure I don't) but I will do my best to satisfy your inquiries.

If its the latter, I'll be ingoring you from now on.

The reason I asked you about those two issues in the "old law" is because you claimed the only rule he completely overturned was the dietary restriction. We just covered two prime examples of how he completely opposed parts of the Jewish Law.

[Big Papa Goat]

You know whats a dumb idea? Respect for religion.


And I really mean that

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

The reason I asked you about those two issues in the "old law" is because you claimed the only rule he completely overturned was the dietary restriction. We just covered two prime examples of how he completely opposed parts of the Jewish Law.

I said it was the only one I could think of that was scrapped. Adultery is still a sin, but Jesus wasn't preaching about the sin in this case. It was about our attitudes towards it.

Its not the Law he really went after (although He did adjust it to make it less ceremonial and more meaningful) but the way we observed it.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Adultery is still a sin, but Jesus wasn't preaching about the sin in this case. It was about our attitudes towards it.

Its not the Law he really went after (although He did adjust it to make it less ceremonial and more meaningful) but the way we observed it.

Well, the Law claimed that the divinely ordained punishment for an adulteress was stoning. The crime and the punishment are both a part of the same system. By challenging the punishment, Jesus did go after the Law itself and not merely "the observance."

[Comrade Rocket]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

You know whats a dumb idea? Respect for religion.


And I really mean that

Your Preaching to the Choir... no pun intented

[mburbank]

In addition to religous traditions, Bush stresses the idea that marriage being defined as solely between man and a woman is 'time honored'. That's powerful argument. Here are some other lengthy historical human traditions that we've done some redefining of in the last relatively short few hundred or so years.

Slavery.
Voting being restricted to white, land holding males.
Citizenship being restricted to white, landholding males.
Child Labor.
Ritual Animal Sacrafice.
State sanctioned religous prohibition.
State sanctioned freedom of speech.

Laws on all these things were tolerated, even enshrined in law for the vast bulk of human recorded history. I don't see as that's much of an argument.

[Brandon]

Also, if Mr. Bush is so fucking concerned about preserving the "sanctity of marriage," why has he not, say.. outlawed divorce?

[Immortal Goat]

Because that would piss off 50 percent of the country, rather than just a measly 40.

[mburbank]

Naldo; I understand your position on marriage vs. civil union and even think it's reasonable (isn't that scary) but since I can't imagone any politician suggesting a formal division between the legal an religous deffinition of marriage, and that in the eyes of te state no one would be married, why would you agree with Bush on one side of the equation?

Ie. Yes, Gays should be denied legal marriage and everyone should hve legal civil union instead, but all we intend to do is deny gays marriage.

[Emu]

This pisses me off:

also, i haven't seen the news today, but there's lots of livejournal talk about our president outlawing gay marriages? well, i think that's a wonderful idea. i do not believe that 'gay' or 'bi' relationships are something God wanted to happen, and i don't think people are 'born that way'. some people would argue that 'if God loves me, He would want me to be happy', or 'it's just the way God made me', but God doesn't want YOUR happiness (or their) for you, He wants HIS happiness for you, which should be want you want- because it's perfect! God created woman for man, not in any other way or form. i think our president is doing a VERY good thing in showing that this is not the way relationships are supposed to be. and it really bothers me when 'bi' and 'gay' people say that they are Christians, too- because Christianity is based upon the idea of submitting to Him. with that submitance, Christians are blessed, and God gives us His joy and a taste of His happiness. i'm really happy with the decision that our president has made (if the livejournal talk is right).

I found this when one of my friends directed me to it, posted on a livejournal of one of her friends'. It epitomizes the thought process of a good 90% of my school. Makes me sick.

[Anonymous]

The other day, a thought occurred to me:

This whole ban gay marriage thing seems like something that will really put off swing voters. Perhaps Bush knows this, but is doing this as a cynical jab at the Democrats, saying that with their current choices of candidates, and with Nader there to take votes from them, they have no chance of beating him, even if he alienates a lot of people with a proposal like this.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I really hope we go after all kinds of adulterous behavior, since we're defending marriage and family and stuff. Hey, and I'd say shitty ass work weeks with less money adjusted to inflation, record setting hours, and less benefits due to a shift towards a part-time economy, probably play a big part in taking time from couples and families.

Heck, I like this "defending social institutions" stuff, it could set a very progressive precedent. Then again, I'm a Liberal, and there's simply NO WAY the Republican "not in favor of social engineering" Party would try to define and codify what private, free, and consenting adults do with their lives, right? I mean, it's only big government liberals that support that kind of stuff, right?

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I really hope we go after all kinds of adulterous behavior, since we're defending marriage and family and stuff. Hey, and I'd say shitty ass work weeks with less money adjusted to inflation, record setting hours, and less benefits due to a shift towards a part-time economy, probably play a big part in taking time from couples and families.

Some how I get the feeling that we'll see a crack down on goods and entertainment aimed at single men 18-30 before we see that taken care of.

[Big Papa Goat]

Why isn't adultery a crime?

[Emu]

One word: mormons

[Big Papa Goat]

Bigamy isn't adultery and outside of Utah, mormons don't count for shit. And Bigamy is a crime. Even in Utah.

[El Blanco]

I think adultery is a crime in some states, its just too much of a pain in the ass to prosecute.

[Brandon]

Naturally, since the Republican party is mobilizing to preserve the "sanctity of marriage," they'd all have clean marital histories, right?

• 1. Rush Limbaugh has been married three times.
  2. George Will has had an affair.
  3. Newt Gingrich has had an affair.

Shall we tackle some others? Or am I just making ad hominen attacks "so typical of the left?"

And while we invoke the Old Testament, here are a few choice tidbits:

Deuteronomy suggests that if a man marry a woman and she is not a virgin, that she be stoned to death. Interesting.

In Kings, Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So much for Jerry Falwell's attack on polygamy.

[El Blanco]

3. Newt Gingrich has had an affair.

You forgot the bit about him divorcing his wife while she was a CANCER WARD.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

You forgot the bit about him divorcing his wife while she was a CANCER WARD.

Oh, that too.