 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Are you saying the Pope was politically motivated, or that killing tens of thousands in Iraq was a political decision? Scott A (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Fair enough. (...) Well, it is if the law hasn't even been contested before them yet! There is a process with which they apparently cannot be bothered. (...) Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the law of the (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, how do you define "Christianity?" I would suggest that the answer cannot be "the teachings of Christ according to scripture," because that answer, for all practical purposes, reduces to "the opinions of particular (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) "Christianity" and opinions (especially political ones) of particular Christians are not synonymous. JOHN (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose since I'm not interested in marrying a man, I'll let this one pass for arguments sake to get onto the juicer bits below... (...) Wooohooo! But then, this isn't any different from a standard politician's template - they just (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) If you'd known me back then, you'd have heard my outrage! That exact example is why certain Liberal pundits have identified Clinton as the greatest Republican President of the latter 20th century. (...) I submit that the DOMA is (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) As I understand it, most Christian theologians and church leaders were against the "war". See: (URL) War 'should be last resort'> & (URL) Pope urges Blair to avoid war>. Scott A (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Non-sequitur. (...) Scott: opinions opinions. (...) Don't follow you there. JOHN (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) And how did Bush become “president”? Was it by listening to the "will of the people"? John: face facts. Bush mixes religion and politics in a rather ugly way when it suits him; this is just another example of that. Iraq showed us all that Bush (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Couple of interesting screeds from a site I just found
|
|
(...) Not to me. Case in point: the Libertarians. They have made woeful progress as a party, besides the fact that they have some good ideas. Trying to change incrimentally from within either party rather than all at once in their own ineffectual (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I quoted the salient text of the SOTU below: (...) "A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Couple of interesting screeds from a site I just found
|
|
(...) Surely, but it's human nature to pout (in some fashion, or to some degree) when one really doesn't get one's way. For example, it's been suggested that blacks in Florida might be less eager to vote in 2004 after they were (or perceived (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Couple of interesting screeds from a site I just found
|
|
(...) That may be true, but that's a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Republicans might, no will, disagree with Bush on certain issues, but they will certainly disagree with Kerry on virtually all issues. (...) This (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Couple of interesting screeds from a site I just found
|
|
(...) Non Neocon Republicans might very well vote for Kerry in preference to Dubya and his wild Federalism and Imperialism. At the very least, those true Conservatives might simply withhold their votes for Dubya, even if they don't vote against him. (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, honestly, Dubya made it an election issue when he put it in his SOTU address. Watching the speech, it was fairly obvious that the matter would become a proverbial litmus test as the campaigns moved forward. As usual, Dubya can maintain (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Please, let's be honest. WHO is making gay marriage an election issue? Who is driving this issue and pushing it to confrontation? JOHN (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Couple of interesting screeds from a site I just found
|
|
(...) Huh? If he supports any Republican besides Bush, I'd give some creedance to this article. But the assertion that "Republicans" would vote for Kerry over Bush doesn't parse, and thus the "Anybody but Bush" is simply ignorant. JOHN (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
Despite being a big fan of Simon Hoggart’s parliamentary sketches, I am not so keen on his weekend column. However, I did enjoy this: (URL) Holy matrimony: the authorised version> As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue, a (...) (21 years ago, 7-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Couple of interesting screeds from a site I just found
|
|
Republicans Who Support 'Anybody But Bush' (URL) lawbreaking attorney general (URL) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Nader really a threat to Democracy?
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:40405999.BF54E7...faq.com... (...) truly (...) How many Electoral votes did Nader get? Those are the ones that really matter. I don't think he got "millions of votes". He only got (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
