Karl Rove granted a sacred divorce

[shadow9d9]

I will answer the question. I speak for me and not anyone else. I would not vote to ban divorce or make it illegal. It may or may not be sin. Even Jesus said divorce is legal when fornication occurs. And I am sure where any type of abuse is occuring in a marriage it is not sin before God to divorce. But there is NO gray area with homosexuality. There is no circumstance when it is "ok". Thats the difference.

The forgiveness of any and all sin is through Jesus. But each sin does come with its own set of penalties. Not all sin is the same, some are worse than others. Homosexuality is the one sin in all of scripture where the Bible says "God gave them up" because of it. Hey rather than blasting everyone take some time and read the bible for yourself. Now if you think the bible is flawed then thats on you. But thats my story and I am sticking to it. Now thats the bad news. The good news is they can be forgiven like any other sinner. But then you have to work with God not to engage in that sin again.

The bible was written by some backwards humans thousands of years ago and people continue to believe in some nonsensical sky wizard because of it. Quoting backwards neanderthals as word of some sky wizard makes you look like a fool.

The Bible allowed slavery so you would be pro-slavery if you were alive during the civil war. Your kind has always been here. Paranoid, delusional, fearful, and hypocritical.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Any fool can claim he is in communication with God. Does that make him trustworthy? Not in my book.

That's two.

 

[shadow9d9]

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 11:20-22
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

All praise the sky wizard!

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

The bible was written by some backwards humans thousands of years ago and people continue to believe in some nonsensical sky wizard because of it. Quoting backwards neanderthals as word of some sky wizard makes you look like a fool.

The Bible allowed slavery so you would be pro-slavery if you were alive during the civil war. Your kind has always been here. Paranoid, delusional, fearful, and hypocritical.

It is Written. "The fool says in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14.1


Like it our not, you are living in a world that is governed by law. That law is contained within the pages of the Bible. It is that Code that supersedes and has all authority over all other governments and laws.

Learn it, love it, live it.

:thumbsup:

 

[nobodyknows]

That's two.

Two that know better then to take anything you say seriously. At this rate you're going to get awfully lonesome afully fast. No matter, since you seem to enjoy one-sided conversations you can always talk to God. ROFL!!

 

[nobodyknows]

It is Written. "The fool says in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14.1


Like it our not, you are living in a world that is governed by law. That law is contained within the pages of the Bible. It is that Code that supersedes and has all authority over all other governments and laws.

Learn it, love it, live it.

:thumbsup:

Praise the Lord but pass the ammunition.

Pray in one hand and shit in the other. See which one gets full the quickest.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

 

[classy]

The bible was written by some backwards humans thousands of years ago and people continue to believe in some nonsensical sky wizard because of it. Quoting backwards neanderthals as word of some sky wizard makes you look like a fool.

The Bible allowed slavery so you would be pro-slavery if you were alive during the civil war. Your kind has always been here. Paranoid, delusional, fearful, and hypocritical.

Well I guess if I am a fool, I'll be one till death. People like you don't even bother me. If believing in Jesus makes me a fool, paranoid, delusional, fearful, and hypocritical, I hope I am all those things 10 times over. That would be ok with me.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Two that know better then to take anything you say seriously. At this rate you're going to get awfully lonesome afully fast. No matter, since you seem to enjoy one-sided conversations you can always talk to God. ROFL!!

It is Written, The One enthroned in heaven laughs the Lord scoffs at them. Psalm 2:4

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Praise the Lord but pass the ammunition.

Everything you will ever need to know from now into eternity is contained in one book. That book is the Bible.

I say to you, there are men so hard and foolish that they will attempt to fight with the One Who is Holy, Kind and Pure. They will mistake kindness for weakness.

It is the heathen who will pass the ammunition and it is the Lord of Hosts who will prevail by citing those things already Written.

 

[nobodyknows]

It is Written, The One enthroned in heaven laughs the Lord scoffs at them. Psalm 2:4

It is written: I'm not laughing at God, I'm laughing at YOU!!

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

It is written: I'm not laughing at God, I'm laughing at YOU!!

You are closer to Wisdom than you know.

 

[nobodyknows]

You are closer to Wisdom than you know.

Then I hope you're having a good laugh too.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Then I hope you're having a good laugh too.

I'm always smiling!

 

[palehorse]

If they simply opposed gay marriage itself - say, they admitted the reason was bigotry - you would be right.

But when say it's because the bible says so, and the bible also saqys 'no divorce', that's hypocritical.

Oh, I forgot... you're just ignorant. You seem to think that Karl Rove's church condemns divorce altogether, or that the Bible itself is clear on the issue; when, in fact, there are actually several different passages in the Bible that describe "bills of divorcement" under various conditions.

And then there's this pesky little fact: Karl Rove is an Episcopalian, not a Catholic or member of the Church of England, sooo...

The current Episcopal Church canon law pronouncements on the issue of Holy Matrimony, Divorce and Remarriage.
Canon I.19 addresses “Regulations Respecting Holy Matrimony: Concerning Preservation of Marriage, Dissolution of Marriage, and Remarriage.”

No Member of the Clergy of this Church shall solemnize the marriage of any person who has been the husband or wife of any other person then living, nor shall any member of this Church enter into a marriage when either of the contracting parties has been the husband or the wife of any other person then living, except as hereinafter provided:

Any exception to this prohibition requires compliance with the following:
1. the member of the clergy must have adequate evidence that the prior marriage was annulled or dissolved by final judgment of a civil court,
2. the member of the clergy must instruct the parties to the proposed marriage of required continuing concern for the well-being of the former spouse and children, and
3. the member of the clergy must consult with and obtain the prior consent of the bishop of the diocese in which the member of the clergy is canonically resident, as well as affirmation of that consent from the bishop of the diocese in which the marriage is to be solemnized.
Thus, the Church permits remarriage after divorce if there has been a civil judgment of divorce or annulment, and the bishop consents to such remarriage.

On the other hand, Romans 1:26-27 is pretty damn clear with regards to homosexuality:

Romans 1:26

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Romans 1:27

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So, once again, Karl is not being hypocritical when he is against one marriage issue, but not the other. He may be the worlds' biggest douchebag, and I may disagree with nearly everything he stands for or believes in, but that still doesnt mean jack or shit when the issue here is whether or not he is a hypocrite.

But, you already knew all of this, right? Or, are you just another moron who criticizes religious people without actually knowing anything about them?

 

[Craig234]

Oh, I forgot... you're just ignorant. You seem to think that Karl Rove's church condemns divorce altogether, or that the Bible itself is clear on the issue; when, in fact, there are actually several different passages in the Bible that describe "bills of divorcement" under various conditions.

Actually, you are ignorant, you show here.

The issue is what the bible says, and Jesus spoke very clearly on divorce in the bible - and that trumps any references to 'bills of divorcement' that existed.

In fact, Jesus spoke on divorce specifically to answer a questioner who was trying to trap himj in a debate between two factionf of Jews, one who supported divorce being more widely available.

Turns out, shockingly, the faction who allowed more casual divorce was pretty popular, and the questioner was trying to make Jesus either comprp,ose the law, or take an unpopular position.

Jesus answered clearly and took the unpopular position.

If Rove's church is against gay marriage more than it's against divorce, then it's hypcrotical too. That's no defense for his clear contradiction of the biblical standard claimed for the gay marriage position.

Indeed, while we're at it, doesn't the bible say something about stoning gays to death? Why aren't these people consistent on THAT? Why aren't you quoting that passage, too? Cowardice? Dishonesty?

There are all kinds of biblical passages not being followed by the people who hide behind the bible on gay marriage. You care to dig your hole deeper and comment?

And then there's this pesky little fact: Karl Rove is an Episcopalian, not a Catholic or member of the Church of England, sooo...

On the other hand, Romans 1:26-27 is pretty damn clear with regards to homosexuality:

Actually, that's not as clear as you think. There's a difference between HOMOSEXUALITY - the condition about 4% are born with on sexual orientation - and what's described in that passage.

Some scholars have said those passages do not refer to homosexuality. Two *heterosexual* men having sexual relations is a pervfersion of a different sort than two *homosexual* men.

The incident described there is quite different than homosexuality. It's a widespread change in behavior where heterosexuals are behaving 'perversely'.

As I've pointed out, you have to have a little common sense - such as when the bible says go forth and multiply, are people born impotent sinning, like gays who are born different are 'sinning'?

In fact, the very church you mention Rove being in, the Episcopilian church, is at war with itself over the styatus of gays - not as clear as you like to claim.

So, once again, Karl is not being hypocritical when he is against one marriage issue, but not the other. He may be the worlds' biggest douchebag, and I may disagree with nearly everything he stands for or believes in, but that still doesnt mean jack or shit when the issue here is whether or not he is a hypocrite.

But, you already knew all of this, right? Or, are you just another moron who criticizes religious people without actually knowing anything about them?

It absolutely is hypocritical - you are just unable or unwilling to accurately discuss the issue and point out the RELEVANT biblical sections. Jesus spoke very clearly on divorce.

The fact is, Jesus spoke more clearly on divorce than on gay marriage, but people can be bigots on gay marriage, while the right divorce is THEIR right, and so you see hypocrisy.

It's very easy for bigots to say it's not them, don't make them defend their bigotry, it's the bible. They tried it withrace and slavery before, too. Some tried it with interracial marriage.

There's a long history of misusing the bible as cover for bigotry.

The facts don't back your position. I don't say your position sinks to the 'moron' level, but you're the one discussing in ignorance, not quoting the relevant info.

 

[palehorse]

Actually, you are ignorant, you show here.

The issue is what the bible says, and Jesus spoke very clearly on divorce in the bible - and that trumps any references to 'bills of divorcement' that existed.

In fact, Jesus spoke on divorce specifically to answer a questioner who was trying to trap himj in a debate between two factionf of Jews, one who supported divorce being more widely available.

Turns out, shockingly, the faction who allowed more casual divorce was pretty popular, and the questioner was trying to make Jesus either comprp,ose the law, or take an unpopular position.

Jesus answered clearly and took the unpopular position.

If Rove's church is against gay marriage more than it's against divorce, then it's hypcrotical too. That's no defense for his clear contradiction of the biblical standard claimed for the gay marriage position.

Indeed, while we're at it, doesn't the bible say something about stoning gays to death? Why aren't these people consistent on THAT? Why aren't you quoting that passage, too? Cowardice? Dishonesty?

There are all kinds of biblical passages not being followed by the people who hide behind the bible on gay marriage. You care to dig your hole deeper and comment?

Actually, that's not as clear as you think. There's a difference between HOMOSEXUALITY - the condition about 4% are born with on sexual orientation - and what's described in that passage.

Some scholars have said those passages do not refer to homosexuality. Two *heterosexual* men having sexual relations is a pervfersion of a different sort than two *homosexual* men.

The incident described there is quite different than homosexuality. It's a widespread change in behavior where heterosexuals are behaving 'perversely'.

As I've pointed out, you have to have a little common sense - such as when the bible says go forth and multiply, are people born impotent sinning, like gays who are born different are 'sinning'?

In fact, the very church you mention Rove being in, the Episcopilian church, is at war with itself over the styatus of gays - not as clear as you like to claim.

It absolutely is hypocritical - you are just unable or unwilling to accurately discuss the issue and point out the RELEVANT biblical sections. Jesus spoke very clearly on divorce.

The fact is, Jesus spoke more clearly on divorce than on gay marriage, but people can be bigots on gay marriage, while the right divorce is THEIR right, and so you see hypocrisy.

It's very easy for bigots to say it's not them, don't make them defend their bigotry, it's the bible. They tried it withrace and slavery before, too. Some tried it with interracial marriage.

There's a long history of misusing the bible as cover for bigotry.

The facts don't back your position. I don't say your position sinks to the 'moron' level, but you're the one discussing in ignorance, not quoting the relevant info.

1. Rove is Episcopalian.

2. The Episcopal Church is still officially against gay marriage.

3. The Episcopal Church officially allows divorce.

Therefore, someone who supports both official positions of said church (Rove), is not a hypocrite.

I'm not a religious kook, so I don't want to get too far into the various interpretations of each passage by each collection of kooks... I'll leave that up to those who want/need to bend those passages to justify their own beliefs.

However, you're still wrong if you think this makes Rove a hypocrite when items 1 - 3 above quite clearly demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Craig234]

I will answer the question. I speak for me and not anyone else. I would not vote to ban divorce or make it illegal. It may or may not be sin. Even Jesus said divorce is legal when fornication occurs. And I am sure where any type of abuse is occuring in a marriage it is not sin before God to divorce. But there is NO gray area with homosexuality. There is no circumstance when it is "ok". Thats the difference.

The forgiveness of any and all sin is through Jesus. But each sin does come with its own set of penalties. Not all sin is the same, some are worse than others. Homosexuality is the one sin in all of scripture where the Bible says "God gave them up" because of it. Hey rather than blasting everyone take some time and read the bible for yourself. Now if you think the bible is flawed then thats on you. But thats my story and I am sticking to it. Now thats the bad news. The good news is they can be forgiven like any other sinner. But then you have to work with God not to engage in that sin again.

You answered the question finally. And you showed you are not faithful to the bible.

Now there are many other passages we could discuss, such as the one saying if a woman is raped out in a field, the rapist must marry her (she has no say), but we're comparing two marriage issues.

Jesus was very clear - no exception for 'abuse' for divorce. None. You are looking for any weasely way to try to say the two are different you can - Jesus only said no divorce he didn't say the same PENALTY, so you can ignore His statement altogether, you say. The point is, you are using the bible when it suits your own prejudice, and ignoring it when it doesn't.

That is the behavior of a bigot, not a man following the bible.

If you understood the first thing about homosexuality (people are born homosexual), you would understand something about why that's not 'sin' any more than the impotent people not 'multiplying' I mentioned.

And as I challenged Jaskalas, how about the 'stone them' passages, why aren't you following the bible?

No, you can't use the bible so carelessly and selectively as you do - your position is exposed as bigotry.

Ban gay marriage (while not stoning gays) waving the bible, and don't equally oppose divorce (except in the case of adultery). How convenient for you to get to indulge bigotry and not face angry divorcees.

Not too intellectually honest, but hey, who cares, it's only gay people you are denying civil rights to.

You think it's ok to use 'common sense' to invent rules directly contradicting the word of Jesus when you want - oh, ANY abuse is an exception too I'm sure He just forgot,. and while we're at it let's just make divorce available for personal preference - but when it comes to the common sense of saying 'maybe the saqme sex passages about God punishing men and their turning to perversion isn't about the small percentage of people who are *born gay* (as some are bvorn blind, born impotent, born paralyzed, etc.) No, no common sense for gays.

You really don't have a leg to stand on here. The question is whether you are honest and will admit it.

 

[Craig234]

1. Rove is Episcopalian.

2. The Episcopal Church is still officially against gay marriage.

3. The Episcopal Church officially allows divorce.

Therefore, someone who supports both official positions of said church (Rove), is not a hypocrite.

I'm not a religious kook, so I don't want to get too far into the various interpretations of each passage by each collection of kooks... I'll leave that up to those who want/need to bend those passages to justify their own beliefs.

However, you're still wrong if you think this makes Rove a hypocrite when items 1 - 3 above quite clearly demonstrate otherwise.

First, you dodged the issues

Second, as for your little argument, I answered it in the last post. Both Rove and his church are hypocritical.

You can't seem to address the issue, so I wo't expect any sensible response ot that - you just seem ready to rant, not say something on the issue.

But it's very simple. Jesus clearly said no divorce without adultery, so hiding behind what they think the bible says on gay marriage, but not on divorce, is selective misuse.

 

[palehorse]

First, you dodged the issues

Second, as for your little argument, I answered it in the last post. Both Rove and his church are hypocritical.

You can't seem to address the issue, so I wo't expect any sensible response ot that - you just seem ready to rant, not say something on the issue.

But it's very simple. Jesus clearly said no divorce without adultery, so hiding behind what they think the bible says on gay marriage, but not on divorce, is selective misuse.

whatever you say... son, you're still wrong.

 

[CitizenKain]

Everything you will ever need to know from now into eternity is contained in one book. That book is the Bible.

The Bible's chapter on BGP and other routing protocols was very brief.

 

[rockyct]

whatever you say... son, you're still wrong.

I completely agree with Craig in this thread

The Bible is exceptionally clear when it comes to divorce. It is a sin. Jesus, himself, preaches this, which the same cannot be said for homosexuality. I think the Episcopal Church would agree with that. Why do they allow it? It's because the church believes it's better to include sinners and have them ask God for forgiveness. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin and neither is gay sex. The church needs to stop attacking gay people and start loving them and letting them deal with their sins with God. Jesus did not join in with the Pharisees and locals in condemning sinners. He ate with them and through love they changed. Some of the most powerful examples of Jesus' love is when He is interacting with the "untouchables" or the "really big sinners." It saddens me to see what some Christians say about gay people in the name of God.

I'm not going to go very much into this, but some of what Paul writes needs to be looked at with the whole picture in mind. He wrote letters to churches and leaders that addressed problems they were having. He told women to keep their hair covered. This was not meant to be a specific rule for the entire church, but instead meant to address a problem that women in the church were doing the same customs of the local prostitutes. I'm going to be clear. I am not saying the Bible is ok with gay sex, but I am saying that a lot of passages used by the anti-gay marriage crowd are taken out of context.

Plus, as a general PSA to the anti-gay marriage crowd, don't bring up passages in Leviticus when you don't want them to be applied to you.

 

[kage69]

You're nuts.

Yep, nuttier than a Payday bar. Par the course for fundies though, as I'm sure you know.


The Bushwacked, Effetti being a great example, are just a little touchy on the subject of Rove as they've been trying to forget about all the sleepovers that Jeff Gannon enjoyed at The White House back in those heady Puppet Days. Maybe this is Rove getting rid of his "beard," and they just don't want to think about their "christian warriors" *gag* chillin with gay prostitutes.

Spin it anyway you want guys, the only natural threat to marriage is divorce, and someone partaking in divorce who previously led a campaign to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage is a text book example of hypocrisy. End of story.

Thanks for all the blabber about "truth" Effetti. Zealots like you using the T word never fails to crack me up.

 

[classy]

I completely agree with Craig in this thread

The Bible is exceptionally clear when it comes to divorce. It is a sin. Jesus, himself, preaches this, which the same cannot be said for homosexuality. I think the Episcopal Church would agree with that. Why do they allow it? It's because the church believes it's better to include sinners and have them ask God for forgiveness. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin and neither is gay sex. The church needs to stop attacking gay people and start loving them and letting them deal with their sins with God. Jesus did not join in with the Pharisees and locals in condemning sinners. He ate with them and through love they changed. Some of the most powerful examples of Jesus' love is when He is interacting with the "untouchables" or the "really big sinners." It saddens me to see what some Christians say about gay people in the name of God.

I'm not going to go very much into this, but some of what Paul writes needs to be looked at with the whole picture in mind. He wrote letters to churches and leaders that addressed problems they were having. He told women to keep their hair covered. This was not meant to be a specific rule for the entire church, but instead meant to address a problem that women in the church were doing the same customs of the local prostitutes. I'm going to be clear. I am not saying the Bible is ok with gay sex, but I am saying that a lot of passages used by the anti-gay marriage crowd are taken out of context.

Plus, as a general PSA to the anti-gay marriage crowd, don't bring up passages in Leviticus when you don't want them to be applied to you.

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.

 

[soundforbjt]

Very well.

It seems that every old liberal saw is being dragged through this thread. Let’s address this latest one, shall we ?

The “chickenhawk”.

As I understand it, the “chicken hawk” is that man who advocates the protection of his homeland by military force but is not actually firing the weapon himself. Is that it?

Here is truth.

It is God, wise old men, grand mothers, wives, daughters, young sons and other worthy men who decide when it is time to go to war. To discount and devalue the contribution and commitment of the above group is treasonous. It is the above group that extends the offer to the potential soldier. The opportunity to defend the realm is an honor that should be seen as a prize, an honor and a highly desired position.

Honor is offered to the soldier in exchange for his loyal and obedient service. It is not for the soldier to make any decisions, but to obey.
This exchange is seldom outlined but it is understood by those who possess integrity and wisdom.

Those individuals who hate the rule of the King, dare to insult and question the King and his participation in the war.

Know this, it is the King who cries out to God. It is the King who can see the beginning to the end. It is the King who has the trust of the people. It is the King who carries the weight of the Nation on his shoulders.

The man who pulls the trigger is given that honor by the King. That man who insults the King is a treasonous infidel and a prostitute for the enemy.

No, the chicken hawk is a man who advocates war, but goes out of his way to AVOID serving himself...Cheney,Rove etc, 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.

 

[palehorse]

I completely agree with Craig in this thread

The Bible is exceptionally clear when it comes to divorce. It is a sin. Jesus, himself, preaches this, which the same cannot be said for homosexuality. I think the Episcopal Church would agree with that. Why do they allow it? It's because the church believes it's better to include sinners and have them ask God for forgiveness. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin and neither is gay sex. The church needs to stop attacking gay people and start loving them and letting them deal with their sins with God. Jesus did not join in with the Pharisees and locals in condemning sinners. He ate with them and through love they changed. Some of the most powerful examples of Jesus' love is when He is interacting with the "untouchables" or the "really big sinners." It saddens me to see what some Christians say about gay people in the name of God.

I'm not going to go very much into this, but some of what Paul writes needs to be looked at with the whole picture in mind. He wrote letters to churches and leaders that addressed problems they were having. He told women to keep their hair covered. This was not meant to be a specific rule for the entire church, but instead meant to address a problem that women in the church were doing the same customs of the local prostitutes. I'm going to be clear. I am not saying the Bible is ok with gay sex, but I am saying that a lot of passages used by the anti-gay marriage crowd are taken out of context.

Plus, as a general PSA to the anti-gay marriage crowd, don't bring up passages in Leviticus when you don't want them to be applied to you.

The issue here is not a debate on the interpretations of the Bible's passages being right or wrong (or accurate). Perhaps I made a mistake by listing those at all.

The issue is whether or not Karl Rove is being hypocritical when he is for divorce while being against gay marriage -- or, more accurately, while being against homosexuality altogether. To prove that he is not, I should have simply stuck to the three facts I pointed out later in the thread. Those being:

1. Rove is Episcopalian.

2. The Episcopal Church is still officially against gay marriage.

3. The Episcopal Church officially allows divorce.

Therefore, according to his chosen religion's tenets, and his subsequent adherence to such, Rove is not being hypocritical.

The question of whether or not his entire chosen religion is hypocritical, based on their selective interpretations of each topic, is a different issue altogether.

Also please note that I support gay marriage, and I'm not a follower or believer of any organized religion. I happen to personally feel that the Bible and other formal religious texts are nothing more than collections of well-written fables meant to control peoples' behavior... I also feel that Rove is a grade-A douchebag. Regardless, his getting two divorces does not really make him a hypocrite.