I actually laughed out loud when I first saw this on CNN. Do these idiots really think they need an electric fence to keep me from reproducing with women . . . who don’t want to reproduce with me either?
-
You are now changing the claim you made.
-
You still haven’t supported either claim. If the Republican is down in the polls then says something anti -gay and the polls reverse, that does not support the claim that all Republicans or the average Republican supports the anti -gay rhetoric. At most it supports that some people need some anti -gay rhetoric to move them from undecided to Republican.
Personally, I believe Obama will be re-elected. His office was ripe for the picking and all the Republicans could muster was Mitt.
/fail
So you’re telling us it’s not only factual, but makes you *happy, *that your party indulges in condemnation of fellow citizens for being who they are, as long as you calculate that it increases their net vote total? And you nevertheless deny being a partisan hack?
That’s just too stupid to respond to.
You certainly would if you could think of something, kid. You’re not fooling anybody but yourself, you know.
Ah, I was looking at Leviticus 18:22, hence my not knowing what you were talking about. The verses are so similar (other than the death penalty part) that I didn’t even realize there were two of them.:smack:
That’s fair. I thought your point was more “people who say they’re Christian but don’t have a problem with gays are kidding themselves, because the Bible says X, Y, and Z”. Whereas I’d say it’s no more of a stretch to discount those Bible passages than a lot of the other ones that basically all Christians discount or view as not really applicable to modern society. If your point is that the rabidly anti-gay Christians are also arbitrarily picking and choosing what to believe, I can’t dispute that.
If anything, I’d say that the people who say “The core message of the Bible is to treat people with love and compassion” and then basically ignore anything that doesn’t gel with that are more consistent in their interpretation, in the sense that they aren’t arbitrarily picking-and-choosing verses according to their personal prejudices but doing it according to a governing principle.
Of course whether the core message of the Bible really is to treat people with love and compassion is a whole other debate.
Do you support antigay rhetoric if it gets Republican votes? Why or why not?
And then there’s the Disciple whom Jesus loved. Now this is Jesus, right? He loves everybody including his enemies, right? Why single out one guy for special mention of love unless there was something . . . special about their relationship? 
(Don’t look at me like that, Mary Magdalene! It’s not like you didn’t know!)
Biblical threesome…?
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Biblical, that is.
Why? WHY can’t your sort be the more vocal? Is it akin to “those who desire most to lead others are often the least fit to do so?”
If you think about it God didn’t declare anything a sin, everything about God was determined by another human being. There is nothing ever written,taught, said, or thought that wasn’t of human origin, so one is taking the word of another human,not God!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover
Please demonstrate how I am a partisan hack. You can’t do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover
2. I don’t really care why people vote for Republicans as long as they do.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I’m glad you got that out. It’s apparently been building for like two months.
Catharsis.
Also, I just read this today. I didn’t respond earlier because I hadn’t read this thread then.
It would seem this person is also admitting that homosexuality has a genetic cause. But don’t evangelicals usually say it’s a life choice, not ingrained.
Of course, she is impervious to logic . . . .
Not really. A partisan hack is someone who will never criticize his own party. Usually, it also means he will never say anything good about the other party, and constantly tries to paint that party in the worst light possible. Given two possible explanations for something, he will accept, uncritically, the “good” one when it comes to his own party and the “bad” one when it comes to the other party.
But just wishing that people will vote for your party, no matter the reason? No, that’s not what a hack is. It’s a necessary but not a sufficient reason.
Do you think any of the party affiliated folks on this MB would discourage anyone from voting for his favored party?
Her head is so impervious that . . . well, lets just say that if there is a zombie apocalypse, we’re all fucked!
CMC fnord!