Obama, Biden Flip on Gay Marriage. Against Prop 8 NOW.
From the Obama, Pelosi and Reid media machine
Democratic vice presidential hopeful Senator Joseph Biden has taped on an episode of Ellen to oppose California’s proposed constitutional gay marriage ban.
In the episode slated to air Monday, Biden entered to David Bowie’s Changes, DeGeneres quipped, welcoming the Democratic vice presidential candidate the same way his Republican counterpart did at the onset of their October 2 debate: “Can I call you Joe?”
Biden told DeGeneres, who recently married actress Portia de Rossi, that he opposed Proposition 8, an amendment on California’s November ballot which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
“If I lived in California, I’d clearly vote against Prop 8,” Biden said.
DeGeneres is spending $100,000 of her own money to run a television commerical opposing Proposition 8.
In the VP debates the question was asked “Do you support gay Marriage” Joe Biden answered “Neither me or Barack support gay marriage” then he was pressed on the definition Biden said “We define marriage as between one man and one woman”
Flash forward to NOW..
Biden appears with Ellen Degenerate, who has a very LEFT leaning audience and he is opposed to Gay Marriage. Now let me be perfectly clear, I have no problem with Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama being FOR Gay marriage.. Everyone has an opinion on it, and frankly I figured both were for it anyway, they are liberals after all. What I have a problem with is PANDERING, this is the most flagrant example of election year pandering so far. They were against it before they were for it.
I really don’t have a problem with Ellen, she is gay.. so what? What I have a problem with is GAYS making it seem like it’s normal, it is not normal it is ABNORMAL! “How can you say that Bushwack?” You might ask…Glad you asked.
IF it was NORMAL, WE wouldn’t EXIST! There would have been Adam and Steve in the garden living out there lives and that would have been IT.. It is not a birth defect, it is not a NATURAL urge… IT is an abnormality and it is purely sexual. YOU can show me all the Bullshit professor of Berkley data you can find, and I will redirect you to the oldest book in existence and a quick mechanical aptitude test: The male end goes into the female end, the plug goes into the receptacle, Two female ends do not connect to create anything (except good viewing material), and two male ends are just sick. It takes a MALE AND FEMALE to create life..There is no argument on this earth that can dispute that. All the arguments put fourth by Gays are inadequate at best.
AGAIN, I don’t give a damn if you make a choice to be gay… have at it, just don’t expect me to say “Awe isn’t that special he is taking it up the pooper” It is as wrong as having sex with animals or bigamy. Wrong is wrong, but if you decide that’s what you want, have at it.. just don’t tell me it is NORMAL or tell me I have to accept it. I do not and it is MY right to raise MY kids the way I see fit.
Prop 8 in California is designed to set Marriage definition as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, since the Supreme Court of KALIFORNIA decided to reverse our last VOTE on this issue. We had 65% victory over the GAY Marriage advocates, but now we have to vote on it again, the GAYS are hoping we grow tired of having our votes tossed and quit voting.
IF Prop 8 is defeated it will only be a matter of time before someone takes legal action to marry more than one person, or marry an animal… Because once you remove the sanctity of Marriage from the eyes of GOD you have diminished what has been a holy state of being since before Christ.
IF prop 8 is defeated, the state of California could start mandating that CHURCHES marry same sex couples or face loss of tax exempt status, or other legal action. Marrying same sex couples is an abomination in the eyes of God and NO church other than those of the almighty dollar will comply with that edict. Religion in California will cease to exist in public and be forced underground.
What does that sound like to you?
48 Replies to “Obama, Biden Flip on Gay Marriage. Against Prop 8 NOW.”
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Yes, I’m disappointed in the “have it both ways” stance that many Democrats are fond of. I wish Obama and Biden would just say that it’s a cvil right.
Because it is a civil right. Because you cannot make a consistent argument for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. Because the prohibitions in anyone’s holy book just don’t matter under civil law.
Just to take a competing scripture, the Koran is usually interpreted to mean that even non-Moslems can’t consume alcohol or pork. Sure, they’re in a minority in the US, but if we’re going to put religious belief into law, shouldn’t we be outlawing alcohol and pork?
And homosexuality is normal. Or, to put it another way, it’s part of nature. Homosexuality is documented in hundreds of species, including other primates. And if homosexuality has been found across time in all cultures. It’s a very human thing.
The parade of horribles that the Prop 8 supporters claim are fiction. Divorce is legal, but Catholic priests cannot be compelled to remarry divorced people. Interfaith marriage is legal, but rabbis cannot be compelled to marry Jews to non-Jews (some do by choice).
As for the multiple spouses, let them make their case. Let them show how liberty is furthered. I haven’t heard any arguments for and I’ve seen convincing arguments against multiple partners.
There is no harm to opposite-sex couples if same-sex couples marry. There is considerable benefit to same-sex couples if they marry. This sounds like an equal protection argument to me.
Considering that Prop 8 would allow violent felons to marry, the bar to saying “no” to a marriage clearly must be very high. How is justice served when murderers may marry, but law-abiding gay people cannot?
@John D: You are obviously one of those deflection minded libtards.. Let me school you a bit.
This is not open for discussion in this place, the fact is Life is created between Man and Woman, PERIOD. Sex is defined between MAN AND WOMAN, You put sexual deviance in a LAW and you invite anarchy.
Sexual desires do not define me, I do not go around telling everyone I am a heterosexual Male that like big tits and large asses…That is my preference and I am not defined by it. YOU Faggot supporters seem to want the badge on your chest that says “I like it up my ass” That is the problem I have with Prop 8 opponents. I am married to a wonderful woman, I have raised 2 kids and if your parents were 2 men WE wouldnt be having this discussion. Science is allowing Faggots to have kids, but it still takes a woman to complete the process.
The Gay issue is a sexual issue. It is not a RIGHT issue. YOU have to right to stick your dick in what ever hole lets you do it, BUT YOU shouldn’t be granted rights because of what makes you feel good..Nor should you be able to cheapen MY rights because you want to be a queer.
Can you tell this is a very volitile issue with me? It is because I am sick and tired of faggots telling me how I have to accept them.. Fuck that No I don’t I have Rights too,I have a right to an opinion based on the oldest book and the guideline of which I feel we should follow.
Well, John D may NOT be a faggot, but he IS, obviously, a libber, and I’d bet that if he doesn’t suck dick he would have NO problem holding one in his mouth til the swelling went down…
Silly faggots, DICKS are for CHICKS..
:rotflmao: Damn Fred… :rotflmao:
Since questions have been raised about my sexual orientation, let me make it clear. Yes, I’m a gay man.
Now, TexasFred, you’d better not ever ask a woman to give you a blow job, since you clearly find it a disgusting and reprehensible act. Me, I’d just counsel any woman whose mouth got near your penis to bite down hard.
It’s strange to me that people proclaim such disdain for gay people over sexual matters, when the sexual activities of gay people are a subset of those of straight people.
Honestly, I don’t give a damn whether any of you accept me or not. You can say whatever you like, find fault with my politics, my sex life, even my cooking for all I care. But it is a rights issue.
@John D: It is NOT a rights issue.. It is a SEXUAL Preference ISSUE and it should remain in the bedroom. It is not akin to the Black civil rights, or the Mexican Labor movement for rights.
The difference is Blacks can not change color, Nor can Mexicans.. Sexual Preferences come and go and therefor DO NOT WARRANT RIGHTS based on WHO they want to Do….
Well Robert, if this thing goes through…and you live out there, find out if I can marry my half sister ( she has a mega health ins plan and my HMO stinks ). We would live in separate states, of course, but since benefits of marriage are being bandied about, shouldn’t I be allowed to access the same benefits gays are seeking ? I should be denied because I’m a hetero female ?
Hmmmm…I’m not even sure I’m joking now. :hole:
Well John D, I am fairly certain you’d KNOW about the biting part… And I think my statement was “DICKS are for CHICKS”, nowhere did I say I found oral sex *wrong or reprehensible*, not between a MAN and a WOMAN, it’s funny how you sick faggots, and faggot supporters always seem to miss that part…
John D, you are a LIAR… You must care, quite a lot actually, otherwise you wouldn’t swish your faggot ass in here…
It’s called being a homosexual, a faggot, a goddamned QUEER… Get it?? You sick sons a bitches bastardize the word GAY and try to equate your perversions to the sexual practices of NORMAL, healthy adults of the opposite sex, and then you cocksuckers want to adopt because you have that *parental* thing fall into the equation…
What’s the deal?? Are all you bastards like Wacko Jacko?? Ya want your OWN kids to turn into perverts such as yourself??
I look forward to the day when ALL you bone smokers DIE of AIDS or your boyfriends jealous rage when you’re hitting each other with your purses…
What JohnnyD attempts to do is justify a behavior by forcing it upon those who chose to behave morally.
What really pisses me off is the California Teacher’s Association dumped a pile of cash in the NO bucket. What the hell is the CTA doing medling in this issue anyway? Any question why we homeschool?
I have a YES ON 8 in my yard, along with another neighbor on our street.
Let’s hope JohnnyD tries to remove it.
:shootin:
@Gawfer: Hey Bro, Yeah I think if my kids were young now, I would be homeschooling too. Hell I’m actually kind of glad they decided to go into the work force rather than college too..
I had been waiting for my yard sign too, it hasn’t got here yet, so the wife made up a LARGE sign saying Yes on 8… It will be in the front yard till after the election I am willing to BET on it.
keep up the fight my friend..I’ve just bout had it myself..! :blush:
Cool. Completely adolescent reaction to human sexuality.
And I won’t be trying to remove anyone’s signs. I’ll just be among those voting against the measure.
You are not behaving as a human, so don’t lump yourself with the rest of us.
A soon as you grow up and begin to make responsible decisions, we’ll stop mocking you. Until then, you’ll be treated as one who lacks judgment and self control.
Interestingly, your behavior has been around for millennia and has always been considered deviant. Nice to see you’re are keeping with traditions.
:rotflmao:
Amen! It’s nice to know that someone has that same feeling. Thank you for your courage and for posting this. 🙂
Consider this:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10
Two Indeterminate Texts
By Fr. Daniel Helminiak, Dignity/Houston BBS
The meaning of these texts, said to exclude homosexual people from the Kingdom of God, hinges on the meaning of two Greek Terms, `malakoi’ and `arsenokotai.’ Throughout history these terms have been translated variably (masturbatory, practicers of heterosexual anal sex, sodomites, catamites and the like). Suggested translations today still vary (morally loose, masturbators who waste their property, boys and their pederast partners, temple prostitutes serving men and women, gold-digging gay hustlers who pursue the elderly). No one really knows what these terms mean. There is no good reason to suppose they apply to consensual, respectful, homosexual acts per se, especially since such an interpretation would be in conflict with all the rest of the Bible.
….cont
I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 and I TIMOTHY 1:10
by Bill Sklar
“References on Homosexuality and the Bible”
I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 reads:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
….cont
I placed two words in brackets. The first one, “malakoi”, Scroggs (p. 14) says “literally means ‘soft’ and is no technical term for a homosexual.” It apparently refers to young boys who would take the “recepient” position in anal sex, often for money. It’s also translated in some Bibles as “morally weak”.
“Aresenokoitai”, on the other hand, is clearly a sexual term but, according to Scroggs:
Since… the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy for us to be sure what it means. John Boswell in his recent study denies that it refers to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients. At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. (p. 14)
These words are the words used both in Corinthians and in I Timothy 1:10 which are commonly translated into modern bibles as “homosexual”, “effeminate,” and “self-indulgent.” In these enlightened times, however,there is no indication that such terms are in any way connected to homosexuality in itself.
In fact, according to Is the Homosexual my Neighbor by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott:
…cont
the idea of a lifelong homosexual orientation or “condition” is never mentioned in the Bible… Bible writers assumed that everyone was heterosexual and that in times of moral decay, some heterosexuals peopled did some strange and unnatural things with each other. Since the Bible is silent about the homosexual condition, those who want to understand it must rely on the findings of modern behavorial science research… (p. 71)
…cont
In summary, despite common interpretations of the words “malakoi” and “aresenokoitai” in modern times, there is no clear evidence which links them unquestionably to homosexuality in itself. Instead, in every case in which they are used, there is an implied connection with either prostitution or child molestation. Modern research shows us, however, that such connections are fallacious. There is no research which clearly demonstrates that there is any correlation between homosexuality and the
…cont
Lexicography and St Paul
by James Alan Hall s883334@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
“Biblical arguments and homosexuality”
(most of argument, and some text, taken from chapter four of John Boswell Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, confirmed by Hall in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)
I Corinthians 6:9-10 reads, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” “Effeminate” is a poor translation of the Greek word “malakos” which means “soft”. The word is not translated as “effeminate” anywhere else in the Bible. It is the same word that is translated as “soft” in Matthew 11:8 (“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses”; similarly Luke 7:25). In a moral sense, “malakos” just means “licentious”; Aristotle in the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (7.4.4) says specifically that “malakos” refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. The translation as “effeminate” seems awfully gratuitous. “Abuser of himself with mankind” is a translation of the Greek word “arsenokoites”; this word has changed meaning several times over the centuries, so it’s perhaps understandable how it got translated as it did; but in Paul’s time, and in fact until well into the fourth century, it seems to have simply meant a temple prostitute. (Corroborating this indirectly is the fact that a great deal of contemporary homoerotic Greek writing has survived and not once in any of it does the word “arsenokoites” appear.)
I Timothy 1:10 refers to “them that defile themselves with mankind”; this is a translation of the same Greek word “arsenokoites” as appears in I Corinthians.
from WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
by
….cont
Wilfrid R. Koponen, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.A.R., M.A.)
1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10. The key words are translated differently in different versions: from 1 Cor.: “catamites, sodomites” (Moffat); “effeminate, homosexuals” (ASV); “homosexual perversion: (New English Bible); “Male prostitutes, homosexual offenders” (New International Version) etc.; 1 Timothy is also variously translated.
…cont
However, there was no noun in Greek for homosexual; apparently the translations condemning homosexuals are inaccurate. The Greek words suggest not “homosexual” but “effeminate” or “morally weak or soft” or “cowardly.”
@Dave: I let these comments through because you dove into an area I think several of my readers (And my wife) have WAY more knowledge than I do about it.. While I don’t condone your lifestyle choice your arguments were civil.
So How about it Gawfer, OlBroad, Jo?
My Wife will be putting in her opinion based on her knowledge of the bible which is extensive being she is a PASTOR!
I can discuss the OBVIOUS Wrongs, like the mechanical aspect, the Life producing reason for sex but Ol Dave went all Biblical…
Funny how when YOU KNOW deep in your gut that you are wrong, you can pick and chose different aspects of books or one particular molecule of support and blow it up to galactic proportions, Typical Liberal gay everything goes no consequences for your actions mentality… Ok Dave be patient, I am sure you will get some re-BUTT-als (Couldn’t resist)
Rob,
Your spam blocker is preventing me from replying to Dave here, so I posted my reply on an alternative website, The Lost Loon
Gawfer
You mind understand the point of my post; my point being that, in the opinion of many academics – the bible says nothing about homosexuality; its all mistranslation.
Rob, so following your logic – couples who cant have babies shouldnt get married? I know deep in my gut; im right – Homosexuality is not a choice – we were born that way.
Why did I go biblical? – because scientific logic rarely works with people who hate homosexuallity so much; such a level of hatred is rarely fuelled by anything else other than religion
@ Dave:
“…in the opinion of many academics – the bible says nothing about homosexuality; its all mistranslation…”
You either did not read the post on the lost loon that clearly translates from Hebrew, Arimaic and Greek, or you are one of the acedmices that still believes the word is flat. Opinions can be and are frequently incorrect; The fact is throughout history, homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered deviant and an abandonment of natural behavior.
Ok Gawfer, I think I took care of the Spam issue…
Fire at will Bro.
Holman Bible Dictionary
HOMOSEXUALITY
Guy Greenfield
Sexual preference for and sexual behavior between members of the same sex, considered to be an immoral life-style and behavior pattern throughout the biblical revelation. Only heterosexual preference and behavior patterns are approved in Scripture as conforming to God’s plan in the creation of man and woman. Moreover, all sexual behavior is to take place in the context of marriage. Sex is considered good so long as it takes place within these parameters.
The Bible makes no distinction between what some today refer to as “homosexual orientation” and homosexual behavior. Homosexual desires or feelings are never mentioned as such in Scripture, but homosexual behavior is strongly condemned as a deviation from God’s will for human beings. Therefore, it stands to reason that any homosexual inclination, feeling, or desire must be seriously dealt with as a potentially dangerous temptation much like those temptations of a heterosexual nature such as the desire to commit fornication or adultery.
Biblical references to homosexuality are relatively few. Genesis 19:1-11 tells the story of an attempted homosexual gang rape at the house of Lot by the wicked men of Sodom. Genesis 19:5 mentions specifically the homosexual intentions of the men of Sodom (“to know” referring to having sex). Lot considers this behavior wicked (Genesis 19:7). Raping his daughters was considered the lesser of two evils (Genesis 19:8). This evil of Sodom is mentioned elsewhere (Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:49-50; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 1:7) in the strongest terms of condemnation. The term “sodomy” has its roots here. A similar story is found in Judges 19:22-30.
In the Holiness Code of Leviticus, homosexuality is considered an abomination (Judges 18:22), and such behavior was to be punished by death (Judges 20:13).
In the New Testament the early church also considered homosexuality as sinful behavior. Although Jesus never mentioned such behavior, probably because the problem never arose during His ministry among Jewish people, Paul clearly condemned homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 considers homosexuality to be a sign of God’s wrath upon blind sinfulness. Such behavior is considered a degrading passion, unnatural, an indecent act, and an error, even worthy of death (Romans 1:32).
Some of the Corinthian Christians apparently had been homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Having mentioned homosexuality, Paul stated that “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11). Through faith in Christ they had been “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified” (1 Corinthians 6:11). Paul implied here that homosexual behavior is forgivable through the gospel and that any homosexual temptations should be resisted as seriously as those toward fornication or adultery (mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9). Paul also taught that homosexuality was contrary to “sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10).
The Bible does not recognize homosexuality as biologically constitutional or hereditary (as a kind of third sex), but sees its roots in the sinful nature of man—a psychosocial, learned behavior, expressing rebellion against God and calling for redemption. Such persons are responsible for their behavior. This is a very complex psychological problem with many possible roots or causes, calling for both Christian compassion on the part of God’s people as well as God’s redemptive power through the gospel. The ministry of the church to homosexuals should include: conversion, counseling, education, and support-group relationships.
Because ‘DAVE’ wanted to delve into some Greek, I thought I’d accommodate him and look a little closer at a couple verses in Romans Chapter 1 that Mr. Greenfield referred to, providing the translation from Greek to English and corresponding definitions for applicable words at the bottom of this post. Pleases forgive the size.
Romans 1:18-32 NAS
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts(a) of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading(b) passions(c); for their women exchanged the natural(d) function(e) for that which is unnatural(f).
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned(g) the natural(h) function(i) of the woman and burned in their desire(j) toward one another, men with men committing indecent(k) acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error(l).
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Translated from the Original Greek and definition:
Vs. 24
a. Epithumia; desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust
Vs. 26
b. Atimia; dishonour, ignominy, disgrace
c. Pathos; in the NT in a bad sense, depraved passion, vile passions
d. Phusikos; produced by nature, inborn
Chresis; of the sexual use of a woman
f. Phusis; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse
Vs. 27
Aphiemi; to leave, go way from one
Phusikos; produced by nature, inborn
Chresis; of the sexual use of a woman
Orexis; eager desire, lust, appetite
Aschemosune; unseemliness, an unseemly deed of a woman’s genitals
Plane; a wandering, a straying about one led astray from the right way, roams hither and thither
Folks, don’t be misled by Dave’s effort to misconstrue certain bible verses to support is erroneous point of view. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt what God intended for us, and what He thinks of the homosexual behavior.
With that being said, it is not for us to hate the homosexual, but as the Spirit of God lives in our heart, we must not condone the behavior anymore than we condone the behavior of lying, steeling or murder. It is not for us to judge a man’s heart, but we must judge behavior against the benchmark of morality; the Bible.
Robert, I do believe Gawfer said it all, quite clearly, with no malice toward anyone.
I’m positive that someone…say a breeding single mom going for more welfare, can find something in the Holy Bible saying this is what our Lord wants for her. People interpret what they WANT to, vs what is, to justify their actions.
I do believe a very, very small portion of world society is born with something missing, and therefore cannot help their feelings. I also believe 99.9% make it a lifestyle choice, and this * gay* movement has actually turned me hostile toward a segment of society that I used to feel compassion for.We are all God’s children, after all.
Trying to convince the Christian population that their lifestyle is normal, offends me greatly. It is not, and I don’t want my children/grandchildren, being convinced that it’s ok. I want my offspring to behave as moral, decent and kind Christians, and abide by the only book that really matters…the Bible.
Quit making excuses for homosexuality and just deal with the fact that is it against God and nature. There is help for this, should ya’ll want to attempt to change.
Jo
It offends me that people think my life style is not normal – it is.
Finally:
“Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice And usually
scoldings to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that
to an Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.
The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident and also
posted on the internet:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and 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. (After all, all things in the
bible should be taken and followed as the literal law)
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific
laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) 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?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is
in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour 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?
f) 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?
g) 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?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) 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?
j) 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? (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)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I
am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word
is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
“
@Dave: Ok Dave, the lengths you are going to in order to “Justify” your lifestyle speaks volumes.. You know your lifestyle is WRONG and eventually you will be answering for it.
I am not real concerned for you, what I am concerned with is you faggots forcing that SICK shit on those of us that DON’T want to see it, or have it taught to our kids. We have a right to NOT be offended by the CULTURE you CHOOSE to live in. YOU quote biblical portions but fail to see the meaning, YOU are an abomination and YOU are living in sin in the eyes of GOD.
YOU can justify it however you see fit, but the bottom line is YOU are dead wrong.
Dr. Laura???
:rotflmao:
Dr Laura is a radio and TV personality, not a religious scholar or Dr in Psychology. Her degree is in Physiology and she has a certificate in family counseling.
Schlessinger received a Bachelor’s degree from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and a Ph.D. in Physiology from Columbia University which included a 1974 dissertation of 114 pages entitled “EFFECTS OF INSULIN ON 3-O-METHYLGLUCOSE TRANSPORT IN ISOLATED RAT ADIPOCYTES,” according to DAI, 36, no. 05B, (1974): 2093. A brief marriage in her early twenties ended in divorce, and she moved to Los Angeles, where her parents had resettled.
Schlessinger received her certification in Marriage, Family, and Child Counseling from the University of Southern California (USC)
That’s kinda like asking Joe the plumber to advise you on your taxes…
:rotflmao:
Rob, all of that and he’s a faggot bone smoker too… :rollingeyes:
Such a shame you resort to personal insult in a logical argument – a sign of intellectual weakness
If there’s nothing wrong with being a faggot bone smoker, HOW can it be considered a personal insult??
Methinks the faggot doth now protest too much, and the guilt just came out, in a very indirect and unintended fashion..
The truth always comes out in the end, and the hypocritical defense of the indefensible gets kicked right square in the ass… :rotflmao:
@Dave: The logical discussion ended with Gawfer’s rebuttal, the argument you presented afterwards included Dr Laura as a source, that pretty much stated to the world that you were “Justifying” rather than “Open” about the issue.
The issue of the post wasnt Homosexuality.. IT was GAY MARRIAGE, it has some implications of each but the real problem is YOU fruit baskets, trying to “Normalize” your sexuality by putting it in front of you.
You guys want a name tag that says “I’m GAY, I like dicks so I deserve to be treated special” Fuck that. I don’t get to be labeled by “I’m A heterosexual Male and I like big tits”
The Gay Marriage issue is a damn joke, You FAGS are messing with something that has been sacred for thousands of years in order to justify your perversion. I am not one of those Real Tolerant people when it comes to this, so don’t expect civility here DAVE!
So Sad
No point in continuing a debate with a comminity who share collectively about three brain cells.
I really feel sorry for your children
“…I really feel sorry for your children.”
Yes, they are doomed to a life of honor, integrity, normality; and all this without the guilt of participating in deviant behavior.
:dancingcool:
Gawfer: BINGO… Damn the luck, all 4 of my kids are normal heterosexual married folks raising normal heterosexual kids of their own…
WHERE did we go wrong?? :rollingeyes:
@Dave: It ceased to be a debate when you’re “Justification” was illuminated… You got OWNED and there is no debate to be had. You are a rump ranger, have at it. JUST DON’T expect the majority of Americans to condone it, and DON’T expect the majority of Americans to accept a marriage between two rumpy’s… Folks may be “Tolerant” and politically correct but accepting and welcoming is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN…
Robert, *some* folks may be PC, I still call em faggots, queers, fudge packers, a few other things that won’t be said in mixed company, but mostly I think of em as sick FREAKS… And perverts…
Rump Rangers?? That’s Gayle’s buddy Patrick Conlon, Capt. Rump Ranger… Gayle’s idea of a fine upstanding conservative… Just another cocksucker actually…
Looks like Dave discovered where I live because our sign was just absconded, LOL!
Well, when I called and ordered another sign, I was informed that some local public school teachers are offering .50 a sign to kids that bring them in, and an unknown pizza parlor is offering personal cheese pizzas for every prop 8 sign brought in.
Imagine that. Why is the party who calls itself ‘liberal’ so anti free speech?
@Gawfer: Sorry Bro, these idiots are all over the place evidently.
I hear some of the “Big Bad Butt Pirates” are out looking for the YES on 8 signs on cars, then they confront the occupants… I am thinking of WRAPPING my truck in YES on 8 signs and riding around… I have yet to be assaulted and I want my turn….Insert evil grin here. LOL