It must be an election year because ...

Uhhh, because it's in the Old Testament. I've only said it about six times.

 

I would give up my life for Pope Allen I and AlleyAllenism. That and, of course, one-tenth of my fortune. What is 10 per cent of nothing, anyway? :-\

 

Not that this isn't a fascinating discussion, and not to denigrate anything that prompts the rise of a new and interesting faith, but is it lost on us all that we're talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE here? Churches don;t have to marry two gay people if they don't want to, and the UNITED STATES government can't force them to, nor should it be able to. We're talking about town clerks and justices of the peace, so Leviticus and all the rest of this is completely irrelevant.

 

So where in the New Testament do they take back that statement about needing to kill adulterers?

 

Well, for you Canadians who are proud of your gay-friendly society, Islam took exception with you too, at least tried to. Of course, you're left-winged, so you'll blame that on the American right.

 

Bobblehead sounds as if he's disappointed the terrorists failed.

 

The Bible is a historical document recorded by men.

What some of you advocate is akin to a society in 4000 AD basing their constitution on Mike Royko's musings from 1975.

 

Wow, talk about the mutant, irrelevant argument out of left field. Gay marriages are allowed so the terrorists have won. Bubblehead, how, prey tell, does this have anything to do with what we were talking about?

 

My goodness. What religious-right nutjob are you trying to channel right now? Seriously, I don't care what you say to, or about, my post, you are an unbelievably terrible person, and it has exactly NOTHING to do with your political affiliation. Fucking unbelievable. Keep verbally assaulting people from behind your anonymous curtain, pal, you look like a real fucking champ right now. Why hold back? Why not just tell everyone how you feel? That you with the terrorists had succeeded in their missions, because you think the Canadians deserve to be hurt for their open-mindedness toward gay people. Why even beat around the bush?

 

You know, it's really amusing how only the pro homosexual side uses that. Such means of jusitification of their own choices is really, really disturbing and hypocritical.

Defend it on whatever left ideology you want to use in terms of democracy. But don't use the Bible as your defense. That's a sham. The argument is it will always be seen as an abomination there. Whatever else you choose to do with it, whatever.

 

It's equally amusing how religious conservatives like to pick and choose which biblical rules they want to adhere to, but those rules are taken as complete, and concrete, literal law.

 

Don't lump all religious conservatives into that statement. If you assert that greed is ignored, you may be right with some. But not me. There's going to be a lot of people in hell for that too, if the word reads correctly.