posted on January 25, 2005 11:30:29 AM new
Subject: Dear President Bush
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have
learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and
support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said,
"In the eyes of God, marriage is between a man a woman." 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.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's laws and how to follow them:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
2. 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?
3. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord--Leviticus 1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of
abomination?
7. Leviticus 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?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus
19:27. How should they die?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 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
(Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws
(Leviticus 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
posted on January 25, 2005 12:01:28 PM new
Dear Concerned Citizen,
I only follow the parts of the Bible that agree with my views. So I am afraid that I will be unable to help you with your questions. Even though I know nothing about homosexuals except that is wrong to be one, I am still going to work on the constitutional amendment because it will help get me re-elected where as your other questions will not.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
aka Dubya, the Savior of the Modern World
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 25, 2005 12:42:27 PM new
Rather than writing to President Bush and complaining about gay issues....maybe those who are FOR gay marriage should start looking for a democratic candidate who supports gay marriage.
But...don't look to bill clinton...he didn't support gay marriage....he signed and supported a couple of anti=gay bills [DOMA and 'don't ask don't tell']
Then there's his wife....she probably will run in '08....but she's against gay marriage too.
kerry might decide to run again....but...darn...he doesn't support gay marriage either.
And I don't remember gore stating he supported gay marriage.
Finding a candidate who openly supports gay marriage will not only mean his/her failure to win election....but will be quite a chore for years to come.
----------------
Here's a transcript of a June 18 interview with Senator Clinton on the Brian Lehrer WNYC show in New York City:
Lehrer: The lead story in the New York Times today is about Canada's decision to fully legalize gay marriage. do you think the United States should do that?
Clinton: Well, obviously in our system it is unlikely ever to be a national decision. It is a state-by-state decision because of the way our federal system operates, where states define what the conditions for marriage, or domestic partnership, or civil union might be, so I don't think that we will ever face it. In fact there is a law on the books, passed before I was in the congress, the Defense of Marriage Act, which goes so far as to say that even if one state does it, other states under our full faith and credit clause of the constitution don't have to recognize it.
Lehrer: But is Canada setting a good example, on that you'd like to see spread through the states here?
Clinton: Well, I have long advocated domestic partnership laws and civil unions, to me...
Lehrer: That's different from marriage.
Clinton: Well, marriage means something different. you know, marriage has a meaning that I.....I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can't have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is.
Lehrer: But not with the context of marriage.
Clinton: Yeah, I, I think that is, you know... First of all, I think that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to be something nationally accepted in our country, but I also think that we can realize the same results for may committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.
So there you have it. The Senator from New York State is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. And that's one thing both the right and left will be reluctant to broadcast.
-----
So all you hillary supporters STILL won't get what you want......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 25, 2005 12:45 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2005 01:14:54 PM new
Linda, you seem to think that if a majority state their views in one direction that the other direction is wrong. Even if every President thought gay marriage was wrong, it doesn't mean it is.
So far, I've heard that if gays marry, it will send a signal to kids that it's OK to be gay, OR it's wrong because the bible says so. If anyone can come up with a REAL reason why they shouldn't marry, I'd love to hear it. So far, the nay sayers can only come up with VERY retarded reasons.
posted on January 25, 2005 01:20:40 PM new
LOL.. and your answers to the other nine questions ...are what?
Those of you who base your opinions and use your religious beliefs and your bible passages to uphold your views on homosexuality.. don't seem to have an answer to the other nine questions.. also based on that same bible you like to quote from..all equally as stupid and prejudiced as the first passage on homosexuality..
What..?? Selective use of the Bible and your religion to meet your own agenda? I see...
posted on January 25, 2005 01:32:28 PM new
KD - I'll try to be more clear for you.
President Bush is not against 'being gay'. He's against gay marriage along with all of the states, except Mass., who have voted on it have voted against it.
You keep going back to it 'being wrong' to be gay. That's NOT the issue. Gay marriage is.
AND in addition to that....I'm saying there is not a democrat that the lefties here would support who holds the position that they DO support gay marriage, unlike this President.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 25, 2005 01:51:21 PM new
The other questions are irrelevent...
No answers or consideration need be given... gays cannot be married in 49 states... that is the only issue but as usual the left wants to drag in "what ifs" Gays pushed an agenda and it backfired on them, because elected officials took the law into their own hands...
The backlash is continuing and will continue for years to come... their only recourse now would be to attempt some civil unions... that is of course the states haven't now outlawed that also...
But here is some relevence... why do gays refuse to use the legal system to see that their partners are allowed what they want?
posted on January 25, 2005 01:54:07 PM newPresident Bush is not against 'being gay'.
Please tell me how any of the following show Bush "supports gay rights."
"Bush has supported a Texas law that allows the state to take adopted children from gay and lesbian couples to place the kids with straight couples." Salon, 10/12/00.
"Bush supports hate crime protections for other minorities! So Bush doesn't believe that gays should have the same "special" rights in this regard as blacks, Jews, Wiccans and others. Employment discrimination? Again, Bush supports those rights for other Americans, but not gays. Military service? Bush again supports the right to military service for all qualified people--as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay. Marriage? How on earth is that a special right when every heterosexual in America already has it? But again, Bush thinks it should be out-of-bounds for gays. What else is there? The right to privacy? Nuh-huh. Bush supports a gays-only sodomy law in his own state that criminalizes consensual sex in private between two homosexuals. New Republic, 10/13/00
Bush supports the Texas sodomy statute (which does not apply to heterosexuals): According to the June 1999 issue of The Advocate, Bush said he would veto any attempt by the Texas legislature to repeal an antiquated state law that criminalizes private homosexual activity, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 25, 2005 01:59:15 PM new
Oh gee...logansdad...you might try getting more informed.
This President put many gays into is administration following the 2000 election. That is a FACT. Because he does not support gay marriage....and you haven't given the name of even ONE DEMOCRAT who wants his job that does...you continue on and on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 25, 2005 02:42:21 PM new
Maggie...
Who said Bush was a Jew?
You're quoting JEWISH LAW, not Christian doctrine. All that Leviticus-type stuff was phased out when the "New Covenant" (i.e. New Testament/Christianity) replaced it.
I do realize that YOU KNEW that, just like with the Landover Baptist posting, but people like Crowfarm and Logansda just fall for all these silly posts.
However, it does say in a couple of places in the New Testament that Homosexuality is STILL a sin
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on January 25, 2005 03:01:20 PM new
Replay blurbs,
""""Who said Bush was a Jew?
You're quoting JEWISH LAW, not Christian doctrine. All that Leviticus-type stuff was phased out when the "New Covenant" (i.e. New Testament/Christianity) replaced it.
I do realize that YOU KNEW that, just like with the Landover Baptist posting, but people like Crowfarm and Logansda just fall for all these silly posts.
However, it does say in a couple of places in the New Testament that Homosexuality is STILL a sin """""""
BOY, Replay, talk about typical neocon tunnel vision......did ya notice, Oh wise one, that YOU posted an answer to the OP......DUH, I DIDN'T. YOU DID!
YOU fell for the "silly post"......
linDUH did but I didn't....why didn't you mention linDUH? Talk about Repug Logic.....a total myth.........
posted on January 25, 2005 03:05:15 PM new
Oh for pete sake, Replay, I thought you were smarter than that! You're feeling foolish because you didn't see an obvious joke when you read it.. LOL
Pick..Pick.. Pick...Are you saying because it is Jewish Law phased out when the New Testament replaced it, that it was all bunk? What would that say about the revised testament... more bunk?
Simcha...Maggie
Hey Crow.. "Silly Post!!" I resemble that remark!!LOL
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 25, 2005 03:13 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2005 03:30:38 PM new
Linda, how can a person who doesn't think being gay is a sin, think they shouldn't be allowed to marry? That's makes the person look even STUPIDER!
posted on January 25, 2005 04:16:53 PM new
KD - I don't think your fellow liberals here are going to appreciate you incinuating both clintons and kerry's are stupid.
But if you have proof that the only people in the U.S. who object to gay marriage are religious....I'd be more than happy to read about it.
Many non-religious feel that they are asking for 'special rights'....over and above because they choose a different lifestyle. They want all the benefits of marriage....well...guess what...reality is so would millions of other American's who aren't gay. They also don't want to support people who could get jobs and get their own insurance which is what logansdad seems to constantly focus on. If his partner is a man...can he not get a job of his own and earn his own way doing so?
The gays want 'special' rights. Just like they do in the 'hate crime' legislation. ANY hate crime would protect/cover them...they don't need 'special' inclusion to get what they 'rightfully' deserve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 25, 2005 04:25:07 PM new
I would sure like proof of who "they" are.....
""They also don't want to support people who could get jobs and get their own insurance which is what logansdad seems to constantly focus on. If his partner is a man...can he not get a job of his own and earn his own way doing so? """
Duh, duh, duh, linduh........then why don't straight couples each get a job and do the same ? UHH... because it would be stupid to pay twice for insurance when once would be enough.
posted on January 25, 2005 04:25:19 PM new
Crowf, of course I knew it was a "joke" post, but I've seen it before and it's just not funny. It's so completely based on misinformation that some people jump right in and think the Bible actually supports those things.
If someone here posted a list of annoying Gay jokes, logansdad would be the first to jump in to defend them. If someone picks on the Republicans, Linda will attack. Pick on religion, and I'll do the same.
Maggie "...it was all bunk? What would that say about the revised testament... more bunk?"
New laws replaced the old laws. Times change. That doesn't make either of them "bunl". There is no new information that obsoletes the NT for most Christians. If you are a Mormon or a member of similar groups, then there are in fact new books that obsolete out the NT.
After all, I'm STILL "God's own emissary to the heathens at Vendio" even though Helen doesn't like the phrase
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on January 25, 2005 04:39:42 PM new
I bow to your superior knowledge of Religion, Replay.. And I am comforted knowing that God speaks through you to correct us heathens of the RT..
Please feel free to correct me anytime.
Maggie
posted on January 25, 2005 04:44:22 PM new
Replay you did not notice that I hadn't posted before you did which you said I did.......must be all that religion....it does so fog one's brain............
posted on January 25, 2005 05:04:40 PM newThis President put many gays into is administration following the 2000 election. That is a FACT.
Did I deny this Linda, no. Just because he put many gays in his administration does not mean he is supportive of gay rights. In fact my posts have shown just the opposite. Bush may not say anything negative about gay people - I am sure he does not go around calling Cheney's daughter a dyke - but his actions have shown he is not in favor of gay rights. At least Clinton took a stand to advance gay rights and end discrimination.
You want a name Linda, I will give you a name...San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Now will that make you happy. Now what are you going to say. He is not in a high enough position for you to care about.
Would you like the name of a Republican?
Here you go:
Meanwhile, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger softened his stance on same-sex marriages during an appearance Monday on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."
Schwarzenegger told Leno that such unions would be "fine with me" if the courts or the voters change state law and make them legal.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 25, 2005 05:24:07 PM newThey also don't want to support people who could get jobs and get their own insurance which is what logansdad seems to constantly focus on.
Linda it is more than just insurance, but since you want to focus on that issue, answer these questions:
Were you on your husband's insurance when he was alive? If so why couldn't you go out and get a job and pay your own insurance?
The gays want 'special' rights. Just like they do in the 'hate crime' legislation.
I am glad you feel that equal rights are "special rights". If that is the case why are there so many protected classes of workers - females, handicapped, the over 65 group etc. I suppose you want to be denied a job because you are over 65 or handicapped. I dare you to go apply for a job and tell them you are gay and see if they will hire you. It has already been shown on this board that there are people in this world who will deny people a job based on their sexual orientation.
Here is the EEOC's definition of discrimination and the working groups that are currently protected:
Any act or failure to act, impermissible based in whole or in part on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, physical or mental handicap, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, and results in disparate treatment, or has a disparate impact on employees or applicants
The government has proved this is a couple instances:
1)gays in the military - The government has said gays can serve in the military if there is draft, but not in any other instance unless they hide their sexual orientation. Why are the allowed to serve in one set of circumstances and not the other? What is the difference?
2)Florida adoption - the state has said gay couples can be foster parents, but if they want to adopt a child it is illegal. Why? it would be the same child living in the same house with the same people.
Now Linda go ahead and tell me that makes perfect sense.
Here is a quote that you might find interesting when the gay rights bill was recently debated here in Illinois:
Cullerton, a Roman Catholic, quoted a priest who made what he found to be a convincing point: The real immorality, he said, is in discrimination.
"[What if] somebody says, `You know what? We just don't rent to people like you.'" Cullerton said. "It's wrong."
And you keep claiming you have morals. I am glad to know you like to discriminate against people because they are different. Did Jesus teach you that?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
"Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
[ edited by logansdad on Jan 25, 2005 05:34 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2005 05:50:51 PM new
Replay the rest of those questions are irrelevent, slaves are not the issue, however all of those questions and the one about gays are covered under man's laws...
posted on January 25, 2005 06:15:12 PM newReplay: Maggie...Who said Bush was a Jew? You're quoting JEWISH LAW, not Christian doctrine.
Isn't the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, Replay? You know, those ten commandments that so many Christians insist should be displayed in schools & courthouses or children will lack all moral fiber? But, that's JEWISH LAW, isn't it? So why do Christians abide by it?
Because they like that bit of Jewish law. It seems to me that Christians want to be able to pick & choose what parts of their god's word to believe in and follow.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on January 25, 2005 06:52:34 PM new
logan -
At least Clinton took a stand to advance gay rights and end discrimination. Yea...like the DOMA legislation he signed....like the 'don't ask/don't tell'.....boy that sure was fighting for gay rights too. He's against gay marriage....or he wouldn't have signed the bill.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
OH...yes....let's put a law breaker in office. He was marrying gays against CA law. And they've been told their marriages aren't legal. Great strides he's made. Is he considering a run for the WH?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger softened his stance on same-sex marriages during an appearance Monday on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." Schwarzenegger told Leno that such unions would be "fine with me" if the courts or the voters change state law and make them legal.
Boy you're grasping for straws aren't you. lol Arnold CAN'T be President......and supporting gay unions is NOT supporting gay marriage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 25, 2005 07:04:09 PM new
No logansdad - I'm not going to repeat what I've said over and over to you by answering your questions again. Been there ...done that.
You're not going to change my views on gay marriage. But with all you've repeated said here on these different threads...and especially reading your statement about hoping for the deaths of our soldiers who are fighting for your freedoms all over the world....I think you've help push me over to being against gay unions also.
You've got benefits for your lover as do many domestic partners. And all the legalities can be dealt with in a will.
It's not me that has repeatedly brought up the insurance issue....you have. I believe this is the first time I've mentioned it....and did so because you keep harping away on it.
In time...the public may accept gay marriage. I hope I don't live to see the day...but it sure isn't going to happen any time soon... when state after state are passing laws to prevent it. And those good ol' democratic politicians AREN'T going to be coming out for gay marriage if they hope to win the WH....not when all but one state is in disagreement with it. Taking Arnold's position is KNOWING just how many states WON'T be changing their news laws anytime soon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 25, 2005 07:08:11 PM new
Linda, the only time Hillary is against gays is when she's naked. And considering her marriage to Bill, well, I won't throw the first stone.
posted on January 25, 2005 07:10:37 PM new
Again, ask linduh a direct question which she actuallly has to apply logic to and she ignores it. This is because without a C&P she can't think for herself.
But I'll try again.....
would sure like proof of who "they" are.....
""They also don't want to support people who could get jobs and get their own insurance which is what logansdad seems to constantly focus on. If his partner is a man...can he not get a job of his own and earn his own way doing so? """
Duh, duh, duh, linduh........then why don't straight couples each get a job and do the same ? UHH... because it would be stupid to pay twice for insurance when once would be enough.
Too deep for ya ?
Now she'll hide her inability to reason by saying , "Oh, dear me, I never answer those I don't respect(especially when they have me backed into a corner and I can't answer the question)........""""""" Ha!
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 25, 2005 03:13 PM ]