Skip to main content

So, in light of Obama saying he believes in gays' right to marry, I've heard/read "Christians" state they won't vote for him due to this...

I was raised in a Christian church. I stopped going because of my mind finally telling me the contradictions didn't make any sense and that using The Bible to spread a political agenda wasn't right. In any case, even though I don't pattern my life after any religion, religion still fascinates me. I enjoy reading books about it, watching programs, discussing it. I, myself, though, am not religious.

As most people with a television set or internet access know by now, President Obama stated yesterday that he believes that homosexuals should be afforded the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. In light of this, of course, the blogs, Twittersphere, Facebook statuses/comments, messageboards, etc. were flooded with comments in response to Obama's admission. I read a few comments along the lines of this - "I can't vote for a man who believes in gay civil unions, let alone marriage, for the book I believe in and live my life by believes it to be an abomination."

Okay, so here's my question. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Hard-core conservative evangelicals don't believe Mormons go to heaven. So, are these people saying that they'd rather vote for a guy who they believe will go to hell, but that doesn't support the rights of a group of people they believe to be sinful than a guy who they believe will join them in heaven, but that supports the rights of this "sinful" group of people? How on earth does that make any sense?

Christian: "You're going to hell, mister! You're a Mormon!"

Mormon: "But, I don't believe in marriage equality for the minority know as the gays!"

Christian: "Oh, so you ARE one of us! We'll vote for you then!"

Mormon: "Am I still going to hell?"

Christian: "Yup. Burn, baby, burn!"

Yeah, that all makes sense now... ::scratches head::

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more