Karl Rove granted a sacred divorce

[Robor]

I don't trust anyone who is not in communication with God. Do you?

Radical muslim nutjobs feel the same way about you so despite your over-the-top superiority complex you're no better than them.

 

[palehorse]

Radical muslim nutjobs feel the same way about you so despite your over-the-top superiority complex you're no better than them.

Actually, since he's not likely to strap on a suicide vest and proceed to blow up a market full of innocent women and children, he does remain at least one notch better than any fanatically fundamentalist Muslims who would likely do so at the first opportunity... There are various degrees of fanaticism, and as of right now, the current crop of fanatical Muslims are pretty much setting the standard for "most extreme."

That said, there are enough threads on that subject already...

 

[kage69]

Cheney,Rove, all went out of their way to avoid service, cheney went so far as to get his wife pregnant so he wouldn't have to serve.

Yep, and that was after he exhausted the maximum number of student deferments if I recall.

"Other priorities" - which in his case was being a lousy student and working for a phone company.

Our country wasn't kept safe by these hypocrites since 9/11, our country was kept safe in spite of those hypocrites.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, since he's not likely to strap on a suicide vest and proceed to blow up a market full of innocent women and children, he does remain at least one notch better than any fanatically fundamentalist Muslims who would likely do so at the first opportunity... There are various degrees of fanaticism, and as of right now, the current crop of fanatical Muslims are pretty much setting the standard for "most extreme."

That said, there are enough threads on that subject already...

Give the Muslim extremists the US military and take it away from the US and leave us to fight in rags and rifles, and I bet you will find the extremists happy to sit and post on the internet instead, too, while the military does their dirty work for them. I suspect a few of us might even get so infuriated by the civilian violence that some might say striking back at their civilians, if it were the only way to affect them, is justified.

But it's always nice to see the world's greatest power who is doing far more killing than the weaker nations it's targetted painting itself the victim over and over.

Our military killing ten thousand people is no problem, a terrorist killing 10 by terrorist means is far worse.

It's not to say that the terrorists are 'justified' in a lot of their violence - they're not, and we're right to oppose a lot of what we oppose - but the distortions whitewashing our wrongs is wrong.

We have a long history like all major power do of having rose colored glasses about our own actions but plenty of vitriol about the other side's.

And it can play in to the 'bad guys' hands - in Afghanistan, the Taliban are killing about 75% of the civilians, but the US is getting a lot of the blame with the people because of the excesses we do commit.

 

[rockyct]

The Bible is clear, crystal clear on homosexuality. God destroyed Sodom because of it. But let me straighten you out on something. When you ask for forgiveness of sin, you don't do that sin again. So if you believe being homosexual is a sin, then that person should repent and not engage in homosexuality again. Accept the sinner, but reject the sin. Your post gives me the impression you want the church to accept homosexuality and not condemn it. Sorry pal it ain't happening. Pastors have been booted because of infidelity and misuse of money. There is no forgiveness when you refuse to turn away from the sin. Talk about trying to take stuff out of context, you're a front runner.

You claim that divorce is up for interpretation, but homosexuality isn't? Wow. Jesus completely rejects the notion that divorce is ok.

Yes, I want the church to accept gay people. Being gay is not a sin. Attacking gay people (which is what the church is doing) rejects both the sinner and the sin. If the church condones a sin and will allow people to divorce and then even officiates over a remarriage, how can it reject a group of people that God created?

If re-marriage is adultery, then is only the first act of sex a sin, or every act? It's quite logical to say that every act of sex with your new spouse is another act of adultery.

 

[classy]

You claim that divorce is up for interpretation, but homosexuality isn't? Wow. Jesus completely rejects the notion that divorce is ok.

Yes, I want the church to accept gay people. Being gay is not a sin. Attacking gay people (which is what the church is doing) rejects both the sinner and the sin. If the church condones a sin and will allow people to divorce and then even officiates over a remarriage, how can it reject a group of people that God created?

If re-marriage is adultery, then is only the first act of sex a sin, or every act? It's quite logical to say that every act of sex with your new spouse is another act of adultery.

LOL. There ain't really much to discuss. You think being homosexual is not a sin and you want the church to love that sinful garbage as well. But that is not going to happen.

 

[Craig234]

LOL. There ain't really much to discuss. You think being homosexual is not a sin and you want the church to love that sinful garbage as well. But that is not going to happen.

Yet another dodge by yet another bigot. You keep up the gay therapy to get those darn gay sinners to stop choosing all the advantages.

You sure seem to understand sin well - how you need to overcome the temptations to murder those you hate, the temptation to steal nice things, and the temptation everyone can relate to, same-gender sex.

Oh, wait, one of those is NOT a temptation to 95% of people, only to those BORN GAY.

 

[rockyct]

LOL. There ain't really much to discuss. You think being homosexual is not a sin and you want the church to love that sinful garbage as well. But that is not going to happen.

I'm sorry that your heart is so hardened that you completely missed why God gave His Son.

 

[ScottyB]

I'm sorry that your heart is so hardened that you completely missed why God gave His Son.

Gave his son what? A BJ?

 

[palehorse]

Oh, wait, one of those is NOT a temptation to 95% of people, only to those BORN GAY.

perhaps he doesnt believe that homosexuality is genetic...?

 

[spittledip]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31036.html

The 2004 GOP electoral strategy relied in large part on energizing evangelicals through fearmongering based on the possibility of gay marriage becoming legal, but the cause was a just one, right? Protecting and defending that most sacred of institutions, the foundation and bedrock of all society, the prize and goal of many a reality tv show, marriage.

Glenn Greenwald lets it fly:
http://www.salon.com/news/gay_marriage/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/29/rove


I can only assume Rove's wife just had occular surgery and now for the first time has vision.

Yeah yeah yeah, "another liberal taking joy in misfortune blah blah blah". I have no sympathy for hypocrites and political opportunists.

Till death do us part, sworn before god.

You are absolutely correct. It is a hypocrisy.

 

[spittledip]

To those who think that Sodom was destroyed b/c of homosexual acts: this is only partially correct. God actually gives His reasons for destroying Sodom in Ezekiel 16:

48"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.

49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Homosexual marriage may be wrong before God just like divorce is, but we should not let it seem like it is somehow worse than other things.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The Bible is clear, crystal clear on homosexuality.

No, it isn't. The Pauline passages generally interepreted to address homosexuality are actually admonishments against pederasty and temple prostitution -- common practices among the audience of his letters. Moreover, when he does address these idolatrous practices he had to make up a new word for it because homosexuality as we know it today wasn't practiced back then. To claim that the bible addresses modern homosexuality is ignorant to the point of delusion.

God destroyed Sodom because of it.

No, He didn't. Try reading the Bible instead of just talking about it like you know what it says. Sodom and Gamorrah's sins were inhospitality

But let me straighten you out on something. When you ask for forgiveness of sin, you don't do that sin again. So if you believe being homosexual is a sin, then that person should repent and not engage in homosexuality again. Accept the sinner, but reject the sin. Your post gives me the impression you want the church to accept homosexuality and not condemn it. Sorry pal it ain't happening. Pastors have been booted because of infidelity and misuse of money. There is no forgiveness when you refuse to turn away from the sin. Talk about trying to take stuff out of context, you're a front runner.

God doesn't condemn homosexuals. Only hateful bigots like yourself do.

 

[Craig234]

perhaps he doesnt believe that homosexuality is genetic...?

Actually, biological (which includes but is not limited to genetic); and while the roots are not exactly identified, the current hypothises are about a biological condition subject to environmental trigger.

I use 'biological' for a shortcut.

The clear test on 'genetic' is that genetic twins have a far higher likelihood to both be straight or gay but not 100% correlation; supporting both biological and environmental elements.

By environmental I don't mean the anti-gay idiocy long since disproven about a 'weak father' and such.

 

[palehorse]

Actually, biological (which includes but is not limited to genetic); and while the roots are not exactly identified, the current hypothises are about a biological condition subject to environmental trigger.

I use 'biological' for a shortcut.

The clear test on 'genetic' is that genetic twins have a far higher likelihood to both be straight or gay but not 100% correlation; supporting both biological and environmental elements.

By environmental I don't mean the anti-gay idiocy long since disproven about a 'weak father' and such.

The bottom line is that science has yet to prove that it's genetic, biological, or anything in between. So, in this thread, wherever you stated that gays were "born that way," you yourself were also hypothesizing -- yet you presented it as though it were fact.

If you acknowledge as much, perhaps those you are arguing with would take you a little more seriously. After all, you're essentially doing the same thing as the religious nuts -- that is, your position is based entirely on faith (if/until science proves otherwise).

imagine that...

 

[Craig234]

The bottom line is that science has yet to prove that it's genetic, biological, or anything in between. So, in this thread, wherever you stated that gays were "born that way," you yourself were also hypothesizing -- yet you presented it as though it were fact.

If you acknowledge as much, perhaps those you are arguing with would take you a little more seriously. After all, you're essentially doing the same thing as the religious nuts -- that is, your position is based entirely on faith (if/until science proves otherwise).

imagine that...

No, you're wrong and ignorant as usual.

I don't WANT you to agree with me, if you did, I'd worry. It's others' opinions I value.

The scientific question whether there is a fundamental *biological* role in homosexuality is long since settled. The details of the nature of the bilogical role are not.

I'm going to make a simplstic analogy to make the point to you, not based on the actual sceice I can't begin to ask yoiu to follow.

Say the researchers find over a number of statisically significan studies of identical twins raised separaely from birth that the correlation of homosexuality is far, far above random selection.

They might infer from that that the biological element is the only one in common - and that a biological element is confirmed as playing an essential role in homosexuality.

They might not know what the particular biological role is - only that there is one.

Perhaps they further find other biological evidence. such as trats or behaviors among very young children, that are very strong predictors of homosexuality, controlled for any evident 'environmental' factors.

This would further support the role of biology.

My statement gay frpm birth is based on the science and carefully selected. While I won't rule out some possible role in infancy, the principle is the same in the 'nature versus 'it's a lifestyle choice sin' positions.

Your statement is ignorance.

 

[jonks]

The bottom line is that science has yet to prove that it's genetic, biological, or anything in between.

For argument's sake, assuming that were the case, this difference matters because....?

Is it not sufficient that sexuality is central enough to a person's identity and personality that altering it is either extraordinarily difficult or, if attempted to be forced, even mentally harmful? Do we not treat a person's choice of religion as sacrosanct despite it being almost entirely attributable to "nurture" and wholly distinct from biological/genetic predispositions? I have no problem saying it's easier to convince someone to change or drop a religious point of view than to change someone's sexual preference.

Given that permanence and enduring disposition, who cares if it's biological? Anyone here think Nathan Lane is going to suddenly declare himself straight and start banging chicks? The fact is that it is not a choice, regardless of the causation.

 

[werepossum]

For argument's sake, assuming that were the case, this difference matters because....?

Is it not sufficient that sexuality is central enough to a person's identity and personality that altering it is either extraordinarily difficult or, if attempted to be forced, even mentally harmful? Do we not treat a person's choice of religion as sacrosanct despite it being almost entirely attributable to "nurture" and wholly distinct from biological/genetic predispositions? I have no problem saying it's easier to convince someone to change or drop a religious point of view than to change someone's sexual preference.

Given that permanence and enduring disposition, who cares if it's biological? Anyone here think Nathan Lane is going to suddenly declare himself straight and start banging chicks? The fact is that it is not a choice, regardless of the causation.

I knew a lady that as a teenager was abducted, raped, cut up and left for dead by a friend of a friend. She developed a rather strong aversion to men and could never trust one intimately, nor think of hetero sex (her only experience being the rape) without revulsion. Who among us is going to condemn her for seeking love among women? Certainly not I. And I personally don't see G-d doing that either.

That said, it is amusing to see liberals making such a big deal about a divorce for Rove, a mere political adviser, whereas they were eager to vote for the Poodle, a divorced man running for the presidency. It's as if we must all agree up front that Democrats are scum so if they do the same things as Republicans it doesn't matter.

 

[Craig234]

I knew a lady that as a teenager was abducted, raped, cut up and left for dead by a friend of a friend. She developed a rather strong aversion to men and could never trust one intimately, nor think of hetero sex (her only experience being the rape) without revulsion. Who among us is going to condemn her for seeking love among women? Certainly not I. And I personally don't see G-d doing that either.

This has nothing to do with the main issue of homosexuality, any more than the failed theories of 'cures' that try to condition homosexuals to change their orientation.

That said, it is amusing to see liberals making such a big deal about a divorce for Rove, a mere political adviser, whereas they were eager to vote for the Poodle, a divorced man running for the presidency. It's as if we must all agree up front that Democrats are scum so if they do the same things as Republicans it doesn't matter.

Democrats aren't the hypocrites who ran campaigns based on fallacious readings of the bible.

Rove is.

Do you know what the word hypocrisy means? Apparently not.

 

[palehorse]

No, you're wrong and ignorant as usual.

I don't WANT you to agree with me, if you did, I'd worry. It's others' opinions I value.

The scientific question whether there is a fundamental *biological* role in homosexuality is long since settled. The details of the nature of the bilogical role are not.

I'm going to make a simplstic analogy to make the point to you, not based on the actual sceice I can't begin to ask yoiu to follow.

Say the researchers find over a number of statisically significan studies of identical twins raised separaely from birth that the correlation of homosexuality is far, far above random selection.

They might infer from that that the biological element is the only one in common - and that a biological element is confirmed as playing an essential role in homosexuality.

They might not know what the particular biological role is - only that there is one.

Perhaps they further find other biological evidence. such as trats or behaviors among very young children, that are very strong predictors of homosexuality, controlled for any evident 'environmental' factors.

This would further support the role of biology.

My statement gay frpm birth is based on the science and carefully selected. While I won't rule out some possible role in infancy, the principle is the same in the 'nature versus 'it's a lifestyle choice sin' positions.

Your statement is ignorance.

You're still presenting it as scientific fact, when it's absolutely not.

That said, I could really care less... I have no problem with gays getting married, serving in the military, or moving in next door (which two gay men just did...lol) My problem is when you present fictitious arguments... which you tend to do quite often.

Keep the topic.. it's yours.

 

[Craig234]

You're still presenting it as scientific fact, when it's absolutely not.

That said, I could really care less... I have no problem with gays getting married, serving in the military, or moving in next door (which two gay men just did...lol) My problem is when you present fictitious arguments... which you tend to do quite often.

Keep the topic.. it's yours.

I'm glad to hear we agree on allowing gays to get married, and our disagreement is limited to the degree of scientific evidence homosexuality ihas a biological element to its cause.

My reading of the science says it is established. You disagree for whatever reason, but you do not present *any* case for your position, just a conclusion. I've posted at length on it previously.

So, no, I don't give ou any credit for your argument-free, evidence-free position, in contradiction to the science I've reviewed and you, for all the evidence we have, have not. Not for uyour cheap shot.

 

[palehorse]

There are millions of articles, most available via Google, that discuss the inconclusive nature of the data. I'm glad that you reviewed said data and reached your own -- albeit predetermined -- conclusions. Most scientists have not done the same.

Like I said, keep the topic...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

[Craig234]

There are millions of articles, most available via Google, that discuss the inconclusive nature of the data. I'm glad that you reviewed said data and reached your own -- albeit predetermined -- conclusions. Most scientists have not done the same.

Like I said, keep the topic...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

If you can point me to a credible article saying 'most scientists' have not concluded biology plays an essential role. I'd like to see it. But you probably would already have posted, eh?