Republican hypocrisy driving people from the party

Why is it ok to make laws based on Christian morality on who can marry who, but not make laws that deter greed?

So, I'm not Christian. I don't know the bible front to back, or even could tell you what stories are in the front or back. But I think the same part of the bible that vaguely refers to homosexuality as a sin is the same part of the bible most people have "grown out of" such as eating shellfish and blending fibers. The parts that talk about women being baby factories only and if you smite an enemy you can take his wife as a sex slave. But I think the part that says greed is a sin is one that fundamentalist Christian Republicans fight to have copies of displayed at every courthouse. The 10 commandments. So we make laws that say only a man and woman can marry based on "traditional marriage" and many point to the bible as to where to define that (ignoring the parts that talk about men having hundreds of wives, took concubines after wars and that one story I referred to that has one character kill another so he could have his wife for himself even though he was already married, blah blah blah.) But if you even suggest a law that may limit the amount of money (root of all evil?) one can make and these same bastions of morality come unhinged!

 

You have to enjoy the hypocrisy....

nothing funnier than a QUADRUPLE-married Rush Limbaugh ranting in support of "traditional marriage" to his fans on the radio. Except maybe Newt Gingirch doing it.

 

Newt has actually reversed course on same-sex marriage, he now supports it on the basis that public opinion has switched to now support same-sex marriage. He realizes that the Republican Party is behind the times on that, and if they are behind the times, they will lose swing voters who see opposition of same-sex marriage as something that is unpalatable.

 

ObamaTax and gun confiscation and runaway spending is driving them back.

 

Didn't Newt announce to his dying wife, that he was divorcing her for somebody else? Great morals, those right wingers.

 

Marriage law in regards to gay marriage isn't based on Christian morality, it was based on a worldwide consensus that marriage had nothing to do with gays. The first time a country allowed gay marriage wasn't in some non Christian nation, it was the Netherlands in 2001. I realize that a lot of people on this site use "Christianity" as a proxy for religion in general, but gay marriage as a concept came from Christian countries; it's not some far east export that has a long history outside of Christendom.

Similarly, restricting wives to just one per customer hasn't got anything to do with Christianity. As far as I know, Christianity doesn't prohibit that, but it's been standard in the West for quite a while.

 

so we have another one of these ill-informed, useless threads. in this one we have a comparison between the willy-nilly redefining of our culture and what the malcontents of our society like to label as greed. never mind that this "greed" has and continues to drive the industry that makes jobs possible. never mind that these newly invented rights are a symptom of our continuing spiral into a culture with no firm ethical base upon which to build a future. let's just blame it all on wealth and anyone that happens to disagree with us.

 

We can say the exact same thing about Obama.

 

The only reason the gays want to be married is to have access to the rights, privileges and perks that government gives to married people. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, and should have no say over who can and cannot get married. Leave that for the churches, and get the government out of it all together. It can all be handled BETTER under simple contract law.

 

Yeah, except Obama didn't have to wait until public opinion turned against same-sex marriage bans. He's not really that much of an ally to the LGBT community anyway.

 

Actually....yes he DID wait until public opinion turned.

 

He supported legalization of same-sex marriage going back to his 1996 Illinois State Senate campaign. http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/images/publications/wct/2009-01-14/current.pdf That he personally did not believe they were valid marriages per his religious beliefs is immaterial, because, as a lawmaker, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and personal beliefs are not substitutes for the Constitution.

 

Seems that he finally came out in support in May 2010, which is magically right when the issue was hitting 50%. Dont argue with me, argue with CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/supreme-court-preview-obama/

 

That's reflecting his PERSONAL beliefs. Contrary to what some Conservatives think, you don't have to hold the values of the law to defend it.

 

we have laws to stop people from driving too fast, corps are people, so we can pass laws preventing them from going to fast too, IE tax foreign outsourcing


.

 

If I were a democrat I would be far more worried about all the lies comming from the Obama admin.

 

You wanna see the definition of infraction? Check your inbox.

 

Adultery is no longer a sin. It is a free pass with today's God.

 

Never mind those who create jobs in an ever increasing need to show a profit increase, have shipped jobs out of country.

 

Conservatives and neoconservatives have their own convoluted interpretations of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Using these interpretations they selectively apply them as needed.

Their version of the First Amendment is that they have the freedom to be Christians, but others that are of other or no faith must follow their Christian teachings. They also decide who is to benefit from the freedom of speech. Example: Limbaugh can call a Sandra Fluke a slut for her stand on birth control. The right wing defends this as his First Amendment right. On the other hand, Melissa Harris-Perry makes a joke about a black grandchild of Mitt Romney, and the right wing goes nuts. By the way, Harris-Perry is an African-American.

Thei conservatives’ and neoconservatives’ misinterpretations and just plain ignorance of the contents of their own holy books is epidemic, and it is no different with the Constitution.

As for taxes, this country will grind to a halt without them.

 

Apparently, God is a corporate player these days, and apparently, he takes bribes on the way into heaven? Oh, that's right. God doesn't exist when you're rich....only cash matters..I almost forgot.

 

Damned right, it is. (It's the reason I gave up on Republicans 2 decades ago. And they only got worse.)

 

Fortunately, the Republican Party is continuing to worsen, and driving away more and more voters.

As they push their agenda of poverty for the masses, 2014 being an election year, they are going to lose big time in November.

 

It would certainly be fairer to single taxpayers if both of the spouses were taxed and treated as singles of separate property rights. What contract law? You just said get gov out all together. Or do you mean contract law with the church & god. And fathers would be blessed again, just walk out and no child support, or actually kick her and the kids out of the house if it is in his name. Couldn't be both names with no gov. laws

 

Your thinking John Edwards.