Again, Why I Hate Republicans

There’s a million reasons to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment – federalism reasons, pragmatic reasons, it’s just plain stupid reasons – which, because it’s an election year, was once again introduced last week. But this is beyond hilarious:

But the funny part is looking over the list of the 10 original sponsors. Most of the names are predictable — Brownback and Inhofe, for example — but there are two others whose names stand out: Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho).

Yes, two of the principal sponsors of a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage include one far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex an airport men’s room.

How do these people sleep at night? And is anyone in the entire country really so stupid they can’t see how ridiculous this is? Who would be suckered into voting Republican by the amendment? All it and its sponsors are doing is advertising the party as a bunch of bass ackwards ignorant hypocrites.

Explore posts in the same categories: The Homosexual Agenda

11 Comments on “Again, Why I Hate Republicans”

  1. Marty Says:

    Democrat or Republican, if you are a Christian, you should support it b/c it is what the Bible teaches. This nation was founded upon Christian-Judeo principles by Protestants who wanted religious freedom from Catholicism. People get so caught up in politics and forget about the true heritage of this country.

  2. wheeler Says:

    marty, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    granted, the bible says some awful things about homosexuals, but it also says that when a man rapes a child, the man must be forced to pay the child’s father money and then marry the child. why the rush to codify the former but not the latter? in other words, so the “good” book tells us something. you still have to explain why that ought to be part of the civil law.

    as for your history, what the hell are judeo christian principles? is that what the christians used to justify the centuries of persecution of jews?

    and how do you get from “this nation was founded on religious freedom” to “today, we ought to enact a law that is based entirely on commands of the Bible.” you can’t argue from one side of your mouth that we have religious freedom and then argue from the other side that your religion ought to be the basis of how everyone else lives.

    and, finally, while the majority of the people in this country at the time of the founding were christians, the NATION they created was, and is, totally godless. like it or not, the constitution is a secular document through and through. it has no preference for anyone’s ideas about god. not yours, not mine, not anyone’s. good thing, too. that way we all get to practice our own beliefs.

  3. Steph Says:

    When Sen. David Vitter spoke about being associated with the so-called D.C. Madam, he said, “Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them.” In other words–stay out of my personal life because that’s between me, my family, and God. Hmmm…I guess the rest of us don’t deserve the same respect.

  4. Suzy-Q Says:

    Good points. We need to “clean house” across the board. Our Constitution was created with the intent to protect, and ensure, our freedoms would never again be taken away again from an oppressive government. Big Brother likes to tell us what is best and “moral” for our lives yet we have these two clowns, and Al Gore and Obama telling us we can’t drive our SUV’s any more yet Gore’s house consumes 20x more energy than the average home (which has increased 10% since that fact came out) and Obama said he flys in friends from across the country to play a pick-up basketball game.
    I guess it’s “do as I say, not as I do.” Dont you just love these “holier than tho” types?

  5. Leigh & Charlene Says:

    And I love the fact that while it is ok for Sen. Vitter and his wife to participate in social security and draw on each other after one passes, or employer provided family health insurance, and they aren’t hassled if one or the other is in the hospital about visitation and what their relation is. Meanwhile, there are tons of FAITHFUL lesbian/ gay couples out there who are paying out the rear for health insurance or have two different plans (that aren’t always covering the same things). Whose social security, when one passes is just going to stay in that big pot in the sky for some low life government mooching person (whether they be straight or gay) to suck out while we have done what we were supposed to, been upstanding citizens, paid our dues, went to college got degrees, or worked faithfully for a company and worked our way up the so called ladder to provide for our “families” and gave back to our communities but instead of allowing that social security to go to the spouse that lifted us up on Monday mornings or worked overtime to help us through college and did all those other little things that couples do to support one another in life, if you are a “homo” the very money you worked for to have the government snatch from your check every payday doesn’t go to that supportive person instead it is lost to your family. Now where were all the hypocritical, bible thumping, “bless your heart” citizens when their Sen. Vitter was going through the D.C. Madam situation? Well they sure weren’t lined up trying to take away his family’s group insurance or his wife’s right to his social security benefits and they didn’t try to discriminate against him and take his job for his lack of moral character.

    And Marty, I AM A CHRISTIAN! I am saved and I would like for you to know that being a Christian and a homosexual are not mutually exclusive. Marty I would love to know if you have ever eaten a BLT? Very few Americans haven’t. Marty, why is it that you do not want to outlaw pork? According to Leviticus, one of the referenced “anti homosexual” books in the bible it is also wrong to eat pork, strictly interpreted from the bible. Why not get a slave while you are outlawing pork? Per Leviticus that is ok. So you should be good to go. There are many people out there who try to take the same stance you did in your above comment. According to your theory, it is too bad for us that there isn’t some deserted country out there where we could run from the predominant religion and found our own country on freedom of religion again?

    I could go on forever but I would fill up poor wheeler’s blog.

  6. Marty Says:

    To the last post, I have had many BLT’s in my life and I love them!!! Also, if one is going to quote passages from the Old Testament, you need to know the context in which it was written. If you are a Christian, then you should know that you are under the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant. When reading the Old Testament, you need to identify what the particular law meant to the initial audience. Determine the differences between the initial audience and believers today and delineate the theological and situational differences b/wn Christians today and the initial audience. Christians today are not under the laws of the Old Covenant (which is why I can eat pork!) but live under secular governments and not under a theocracy like that of the ancient Israelites. There are timeless truths in the Old Testament that apply to all God’s people, then and now, but these truths should be filtered through the New Testament teaching regarding that principle. For example, the Ten Commandments and homosexuality are some of those timeless truths. When the Old Covenant ended, the Old Testament law ceased to be a law for Christians; however, when the New Testament repeats a law it becomes a commandment for believers to be obeyed as a commandment of Christ.
    My point is, before you go around qouting Scripture from the Old Testament to prove your point why the Word of God shouldn’t be used as a basis for our country – which, if you’re a Christian – it ought to be in every aspect of your life, not when you choose for it to be appropriate, you better know how that Scripture applies today. Which, Wheeler and Leigh and Charlene, your Old Testament arguments don’t apply in your reasoning to not support the Marriage Amendment. And if you’re not supporting something because someone who is is hypcritcal, then that is crazy, you need to support things that God supports! Most politicians are hypocritical – but that doesn’t mean they can’t support something or introduce something that is moral. Heck, some of the closest people to God in the Bible were adulterers and murderers!

  7. Suzy-Q Says:

    Umm… where does it say, “tho shall not love unconditionally whom your heart chooses.”? and where does it say that it is a “timeless truth” that must be followed in order to know the Lord’s son, Jesus Christ? I must’ve been sick that day they went over that in Sunday school.
    In the mean time, God and I will hang with those “evil” gay people who obey the laws, stay faithful to their spouses, would give me the shirt off their back and have hearts of gold. Best of luck with the adulterers and murders though.

  8. A Todd Says:

    Marty, I am starting to wonder if you are a little gay yourself… most people who are such HATERS are actually just trying to stay in the closet. Best of luck with that 🙂

  9. Steph Says:

    Marty–It seems, at least to me, that you are missing the entire point. I am not arguing with what Bible says about homosexuality. But, like wheeler said, “you still have to explain why that ought to be part of the civil law.” You say that we shouldn’t choose when the Bible is appropriate, but isn’t that what you are doing? It is not illegal to divorce someone, even if you can’t prove that they committed adultery. This would be the case if laws were created using a strict interpretation of the New Testament of the Bible. If this is how we govern our nation, shouldn’t Sen. Vitter be sentenced to death? And what about these people — “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery,” (Mark 10:11-12)? Should people’s right to remarry after divorce be taken away as well? Going back to what Leigh and Charlene said, slavery was not only in the Old Testament, The Bible (even the New Testament) does not say anything that can be interpreted as a condemnation of the institution of slavery. In the New Testament, slave owners are merely instructed to show kindness to slaves. I’m sure that most people today would have a hard time believing that God did not consider slavery to be immoral.

    My point is that Biblical passages have been used to oppress specific groups of people for centuries. Many of the people that were once considered outcasts are now leading churches. This includes divorced and remarried people, women, and people of different races. My opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of Vitter or any other politician. The issue is that equal rights should be granted to all people. Throughout history society has moved towards greater equality and inclusiveness of all people. This should be no exception.

  10. A Todd Says:

    nicely put Steph! I second her

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: