Alabama will allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples

[Strychnine 1,802]

15 minutes ago, shabby said:

Blasphemy?   Perhaps I don't believe homosexuality stands in oppositions with ones ability to be a great man. And it was a great attempt at Humor!! But as I state earlier, the point of my statement is this:  Jesus has not made any statements on the matter of Homosexuality.  Ascribing Jesus as anti-gay is just as ignorant as making a statement about his sexuality. That was the snarky point of the original response,  #fabuloussavior

 

While I honestly feel you are wasting your time, here is all you need to know about Argo, condensed into one post:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/153508-more-proof-of-dem-corruption/#comment-2563470

 

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

19 minutes ago, shabby said:

Blasphemy?   Perhaps I don't believe homosexuality stands in oppositions with ones ability to be a great man. And it was a great attempt at Humor!! But as I state earlier, the point of my statement is this:  Jesus has not made any statements on the matter of Homosexuality.  Ascribing Jesus as anti-gay is just as ignorant as making a statement about his sexuality. That was the snarky point of the original response,  #fabuloussavior

Let me explain Romans Chapter 1: verses 24-29 to you since you say homosexuality is not stated as sin in the Bible. v.24: God gave them up (turned his back on their sinful ways). v.25: Man chose to worship other men instead of God. V.26: God gave them up (turned his back again) on their vile (sinful) ways. This biblically dispels the myth that people are born into homosexuality.  It is always a choice in God's eyes. And their women changed the natural use of men (chose to go against God's intended use).  v.27 Likewise men changed the natural use of women (same as v.26) working that which is unseemly (wicked) and receiving recompense of their error (mistake).  28:God gave them up to a reprobate (wrong) mind. v.29: Being filled with all unrighteousness (wrong thinking, wrong doing), which Jesus never did wrong in his life!  I only got involved in this conversation b/c of the statement you made above.  Everything except for the #fabuloussavior is some of the most ignorant ranting I have ever heard about Jesus. I hope my explanations of this Bible passage will give you a better understanding. I sincerely hope you have a blessed day.

[shabby 1,956]

24 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Let me explain Romans Chapter 1: verses 24-29 to you since you say homosexuality is not stated as sin in the Bible. v.24: God gave them up (turned his back on their sinful ways). v.25: Man chose to worship other men instead of God. V.26: God gave them up (turned his back again) on their vile (sinful) ways. This biblically dispels the myth that people are born into homosexuality.  It is always a choice in God's eyes. And their women changed the natural use of men (chose to go against God's intended use).  v.27 Likewise men changed the natural use of women (same as v.26) working that which is unseemly (wicked) and receiving recompense of their error (mistake).  28:God gave them up to a reprobate (wrong) mind. v.29: Being filled with all unrighteousness (wrong thinking, wrong doing), which Jesus never did wrong in his life!  I only got involved in this conversation b/c of the statement you made above.  Everything except for the #fabuloussavior is some of the most ignorant ranting I have ever heard about Jesus. I hope my explanations of this Bible passage will give you a better understanding. I sincerely hope you have a blessed day.

are you reading impaired? I said Jesus never stated anything about homosexuality.  perhaps you could find some bible versus where Jesus discusses the topic. it may take you awhile. 

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

5 minutes ago, shabby said:

are you reading impaired? I said Jesus never stated anything about homosexuality.  perhaps you could find some bible versus where Jesus discusses the topic. it may take you awhile. 

Then what is your point? You implied with your joke that Jesus could have been homosexual. And you're right that Jesus never stated, but you did make the implication that he could have entertained the thought in the wilderness. Some things you just don't need to joke about, and that's one of them.

[shabby 1,956]

My point has been stated several times in one form or another. It is this:

point one: Titan ties his view on gay adoption to science. Science, however, does not support his view..

Point two: Others use Jesus' example to argue against gay marriage. He, however has said nothing on the matter. Scripture is interpreted many ways and many different interpretations exist as to what scripture truly says about homosexuality. Everything is an opinion on thus matter (thus the Jesus is gay or straight point) How do you prove unverifiable statements? But here's the caveat.....

Who gives a damn about point two.

As long as our nation is based on constitutional law, the religious argument is meaningless.  The only thing that could justify discrimination in gay adoption practices comes down to the well being of the child. Thus we are back to point One. so let's look at that again. 79 peer reviewed research studies exist. 75 support gay adoption and see it as harmful. The overwhelming scientific body of work on this matter renders using science as an argument for discrimination as a faulty argument. Titan and others may want to convenient throw this research into the Fake News category. But scientific truth is verifiable. Look at the methodology of these studies and if you find flaws with it then discuss. But if you are rejecting these 75 research studies simply because it doesn't fit your argument then you are adding little to the topic.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, shabby said:

are you reading impaired? I said Jesus never stated anything about homosexuality.  perhaps you could find some bible versus where Jesus discusses the topic. it may take you awhile. 

Of course that is not, nor ever has been, the way that Christian doctrine is determined.  Jesus didn't say anything specific about a whole lot of things.  He never precisely mentioned age of consent, or rape, or group sex either.  But we don't therefore ignore the totality of Scripture on the subject because Jesus didn't sit around and exhaustively catalog every specific manner in which human beings might transgress God's intent for how to express ourselves.  

Every statement Jesus made about sexuality was an affirmation of the sexual ethic of the Old Testament except that Jesus took it even further.  He made it more stringent, not less.  Look at his discourse on divorce and adultery.  He tells them in Matthew 19 that their customs on divorce were a concession to their hard hearts by Moses and not what God said about marriage from the beginning - and that wasn't to be the standard going forward.  It's just like his earlier statements in Matthew 5 on adultery and murder.  He tightens up on those things too.  In all this stuff, whether it's on sexual conduct or murder or whatever, Jesus not only affirms the OT moral ethic on these matters, but digs deeper and says, "Yeah, not only don't do that thing, but deal with and repent of the unchecked passions in your hearts that started you down that path in the first place."  The pattern isn't Jesus loosening up on morality, but saying "It doesn't *just* include the external behaviors, folks.    I'm about changing the kind of person you are in the hidden places too."

So the "Jesus never said anything on same sex marriage" thing just doesn't hold water.  Jesus affirms the same sexual ethic that was in place from the beginning which is one man and one woman.  If anything, he makes it more, not less, stringent.  The New Testament writers simply expound on that.  

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

While I honestly feel you are wasting your time, here is all you need to know about Argo, condensed into one post:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/153508-more-proof-of-dem-corruption/#comment-2563470

 

Ironic considering the ethnic background of Jesus.

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Let me explain Romans Chapter 1: verses 24-29 to you since you say homosexuality is not stated as sin in the Bible. v.24: God gave them up (turned his back on their sinful ways). v.25: Man chose to worship other men instead of God. V.26: God gave them up (turned his back again) on their vile (sinful) ways. This biblically dispels the myth that people are born into homosexuality.  It is always a choice in God's eyes. And their women changed the natural use of men (chose to go against God's intended use).  v.27 Likewise men changed the natural use of women (same as v.26) working that which is unseemly (wicked) and receiving recompense of their error (mistake).  28:God gave them up to a reprobate (wrong) mind. v.29: Being filled with all unrighteousness (wrong thinking, wrong doing), which Jesus never did wrong in his life!  I only got involved in this conversation b/c of the statement you made above.  Everything except for the #fabuloussavior is some of the most ignorant ranting I have ever heard about Jesus. I hope my explanations of this Bible passage will give you a better understanding. I sincerely hope you have a blessed day.

I really don't think Titan needs your "help".

And mining the old testament is irrelevant to the discussion.  Shabby makes a valid point - Jesus might very well have been a homosexual.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

29 minutes ago, shabby said:

My point has been stated several times in one form or another. It is this:

point one: Titan ties his view on gay adoption to science. Science, however, does not support his view..

Point two: Others use Jesus' example to argue against gay marriage. He, however has said nothing on the matter. Scripture is interpreted many ways and many different interpretations exist as to what scripture truly says about homosexuality. Everything is an opinion on thus matter (thus the Jesus is gay or straight point) How do you prove unverifiable statements? But here's the caveat.....

Who gives a damn about point two.

As long as our nation is based on constitutional law, the religious argument is meaningless.  The only thing that could justify discrimination in gay adoption practices comes down to the well being of the child. Thus we are back to point One. so let's look at that again. 79 peer reviewed research studies exist. 75 support gay adoption and see it as harmful. The overwhelming scientific body of work on this matter renders using science as an argument for discrimination as a faulty argument. Titan and others may want to convenient throw this research into the Fake News category. But scientific truth is verifiable. Look at the methodology of these studies and if you find flaws with it then discuss. But if you are rejecting these 75 research studies simply because it doesn't fit your argument then you are adding little to the topic.

Very well stated.

[homersapien 11,357]

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Of course that is not, nor ever has been, the way that Christian doctrine is determined.  Jesus didn't say anything specific about a whole lot of things.  He never precisely mentioned age of consent, or rape, or group sex either.  But we don't therefore ignore the totality of Scripture on the subject because Jesus didn't sit around and exhaustively catalog every specific manner in which human beings might transgress God's intent for how to express ourselves.  

Every statement Jesus made about sexuality was an affirmation of the sexual ethic of the Old Testament except that Jesus took it even further.  He made it more stringent, not less.  Look at his discourse on divorce and adultery.  He tells them in Matthew 19 that their customs on divorce were a concession to their hard hearts by Moses and not what God said about marriage from the beginning - and that wasn't to be the standard going forward.  It's just like his earlier statements in Matthew 5 on adultery and murder.  He tightens up on those things too.  In all this stuff, whether it's on sexual conduct or murder or whatever, Jesus not only affirms the OT moral ethic on these matters, but digs deeper and says, "Yeah, not only don't do that thing, but deal with and repent of the unchecked passions in your hearts that started you down that path in the first place."  The pattern isn't Jesus loosening up on morality, but saying "It doesn't *just* include the external behaviors, folks.    I'm about changing the kind of person you are in the hidden places too."

So the "Jesus never said anything on same sex marriage" thing just doesn't hold water.  Jesus affirms the same sexual ethic that was in place from the beginning which is one man and one woman.  If anything, he makes it more, not less, stringent.  The New Testament writers simply expound on that.  

Come on Titan.  Surely you are not equating homosexuality with rape?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Come on Titan.  Surely you are not equating homosexuality with rape?

Come on homer, you're not that lazy.  

I really get tired of this.  Of course I wasn't.  I simply used some various example of things, particularly things that fall under sex acts, that Jesus never said anything specific about.  It was to show the folly of claiming that something was a-ok with Jesus simply because He never spoke specifically about it.

[shabby 1,956]

Titan, again I ask,  can you tell me again what specifically Jesus had to say about Homosexuality? If people use Jesus' name to justify religious bigotry on behalf of a class of people, they should have the courtesy to at least provide actual evidence that this is Christ's viewpoint. It's absurd to say Jesus is against the gay lifestyle now prove that he isn't. The burden of proof belongs to those making the claims. Thus, if you believe Christ was against homosexuality, present evidence of his word on this topic. Also   The uniform explanation as to why many old testament commandments no longer are followed (like killing children and stoning wives) is because the new statement replaces old testament law. Again, though, this point is irrelevant to the entire topic,  The only thing that matters is constitutional law. So I ask you again to provide this abundance of evidence you have about the well being of children being harmed as you claimed was supported by science. Again, I have provided a link to a total of 79 arguments and you have responded with nothing. If the science on this clearly supports that the well being of children is not harmed by gay adoption can we not just acknowledge your argument is supporting bigotry without a rationale scientific basis?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

13 minutes ago, shabby said:

I'm sorry, can you tell me again what specifically Jesus had to say about Homosexuality?   The uniform explanation as to why many old testament commandments no longer are followed (like killing children and stoning wives) is because the new statement replaces old testament law. Again, though, this point is irrelevant to the entire topic. The only thing that matters is constitutional law. So I ask you again to provide this abundance of evidence you have about the well being of children being harmed as you claimed was supported by science. Again, I have provided a link to a total of 79 arguments and you have responded with nothing. If the science on this clearly supports that the well being of children is not harmed by gay adoption can we not just acknowledge your argument is supporting bigotry without a rationale scientific basis?

shabby, re-read my earlier response to you.  I have already told you that my argument was and always has been one of freedom of conscience and constitutional rights for both sides.  I read your meta study.  I understand the impulse to find ways to undermine the idea that children deserve to have a mother and father and to impose a new idea that moms and dads, men and women are interchangeable and the kids are just fine, but I'm not buying it.  Even studies as recent as a couple of months ago affirm it, to the point where they even point out that a stepfather doesn't even have the same positive impact on a kid's life as the father.  One meta study that attempts to assert otherwise is not the end of the discussion on the matter.

The argument I'm making is simply that whether you like it or not, religious people and organizations have First Amendment rights in play here that you don't get to simply railroad over because you think differently.  You don't get to run everyone that disagrees with you out of the public sphere.  This law preserves the rights of both the LGBT and the religious groups in question.  Why this is unacceptable to you and you must impose your beliefs on others and force them to violate their conscience or get out of helping facilitate adoptions is puzzling.

[shabby 1,956]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

shabby, re-read my earlier response to you.  I have already told you that my argument was and always has been one of freedom of conscience and constitutional rights for both sides.

No Sir, You clearly stated you had no beef with overriding religious freedom of conscious involving cake sales because there was no rational reason for this discrimination

 I read your meta study.  I understand the impulse to find ways to undermine the idea that children deserve to have a mother and father and to impose a new idea that moms and dads, men and women are interchangeable and the kids are just fine, but I'm not buying it.  Even studies as recent as a couple of months ago affirm it, to the point where they even point out that a stepfather doesn't even have the same positive impact on a kid's life as the father.

You stated that science supported your argument thus you had a different stance on gay adoption than Cake sales. What Science are you referring to? How can ypou discuss science and then dismiss the actual research on the topic? It's just baffling

The argument I'm making is simply that whether you like it or not, religious people and organizations have First Amendment rights in play here that you don't get to simply railroad over because you think differently.  You don't get to run everyone that disagrees with you out of the public sphere.  This law preserves the rights of both the LGBT and the religious groups in question.  Why this is unacceptable to you and you must impose your beliefs on others and force them to violate their conscience or get out of helping facilitate adoptions is puzzling.     We are back to my original argument. First amendment rights do not grant you the rights to discriminate based upon race. You placed that limitation yourself.   You established that first amendment rights do not give carte blanche right to discriminate.

 

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

shabby, re-read my earlier response to you.  I have already told you that my argument was and always has been one of freedom of conscience and constitutional rights for both sides.  I read your meta study.  I understand the impulse to find ways to undermine the idea that children deserve to have a mother and father and to impose a new idea that moms and dads, men and women are interchangeable and the kids are just fine, but I'm not buying it.  Even studies as recent as a couple of months ago affirm it, to the point where they even point out that a stepfather doesn't even have the same positive impact on a kid's life as the father.  One meta study that attempts to assert otherwise is not the end of the discussion on the matter.

The argument I'm making is simply that whether you like it or not, religious people and organizations have First Amendment rights in play here that you don't get to simply railroad over because you think differently.  You don't get to run everyone that disagrees with you out of the public sphere.  This law preserves the rights of both the LGBT and the religious groups in question.  Why this is unacceptable to you and you must impose your beliefs on others and force them to violate their conscience or get out of helping facilitate adoptions is puzzling.

There you go Titan. I was wondering how long it would take for the bigotry card to be played. Took longer than I thought.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, shabby said:

No Sir, You clearly stated you had no beef with overriding religious freedom of conscious involving cake sales because there was no rational reason for this discrimination

I think you have misunderstood what I said then.  Regarding cake sales, I said that not serving someone simply because they are gay is wrong, but choosing not to facilitate or be involved in an event or activity that person is doing is not.  So if a gay person wants to eat in your restaurant or buy a birthday cake from you, you serve them.  There is no moral quandary there, no religious belief being transgressed.  But if they want you to cater their same sex wedding or make a cake celebrating that marriage, that is different.  It is the content of the event itself you are asking not to be part of as it violates your beliefs and conscience regarding marriage.  And I gave the example of a photographer and a black rap artist whether the album photo shoot is refused, not because the person is black (and said that if the same guy wanted a family photo taken with him and his kids you should have to do that), but because of the content of the album (lyrics with misogyny, sexual references, vulgarity, violence) you're being asked to help promote with your time and talents

 

Quote

You stated that science supported your argument thus you had a different stance on gay adoption than Cake sales. What Science are you referring to? How can ypou discuss science and then dismiss the actual research on the topic? It's just baffling

I said that religious adoption agencies who choose to focus on two parent, mom and dad households have reasonable scientific basis for doing so.  But above even that, they have freedom of conscience and belief about the marriage and family - a constitutional right no less.

One meta study that attempts to challenge the studies on the matter is not the end of the discussion, like catching the snitch in a Quidditch game in Harry Potter.

 

Quote

We are back to my original argument. First amendment rights do not grant you the rights to discriminate based upon race. You placed that limitation yourself.   You established that first amendment rights do not give carte blanche right to discriminate.

No, they do not.  And I am not claiming they do.  Reference again my photographer and black rap artist example.  You cannot refuse to take someone's business simply for being black, gay, Hispanic, man or woman, Muslim or atheist.  But that is different from turning down business because what you are being asked to do in terms of facilitating or supporting an event - the content of the activity or event itself - would violate your religious beliefs and freedom of conscience.  You absolutely do have the right to refuse to participate in such things.  

[PUB78 1,357]

5 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

This was either a very  poor attempt  at humor or an attack on Jesus Christ on Shabby's part.  Either way it is blasphemy.

Blasphemy? Please! Sorry you didn't get my humor, but most liberals are a little up-tight and very touchy.

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

10 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Blasphemy? Please! Sorry you didn't get my humor, but most liberals are a little up-tight and very touchy.

I got your humor. But implying that Jesus would consider anything sinful is inexcusable. That's why I called Shabby out. Not you.

[homersapien 11,357]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Come on homer, you're not that lazy.  

I really get tired of this.  Of course I wasn't.  I simply used some various example of things, particularly things that fall under sex acts, that Jesus never said anything specific about.  It was to show the folly of claiming that something was a-ok with Jesus simply because He never spoke specifically about it.

You mean too lazy to assume you didn't really mean what you actually wrote?  

My understanding of Jesus is that he wasn't in the business of claiming what was "a-ok" and what wasn't.

Course I could be wrong.

[SaltyTiger 7,774]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You mean too lazy to assume you didn't really mean what you actually wrote?  

My understanding of Jesus is that he wasn't in the business of claiming was "a-ok" and what wasn't.

Course I could be wrong.

You are not wrong Homie. Jesus, from my understanding did everything to explain all not " a-ok". Sorry if I am off base but crazy thread here.

[homersapien 11,357]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you have misunderstood what I said then.  Regarding cake sales, I said that not serving someone simply because they are gay is wrong, but choosing not to facilitate or be involved in an event or activity that person is doing is not.  So if a gay person wants to eat in your restaurant or buy a birthday cake from you, you serve them.  There is no moral quandary there, no religious belief being transgressed.  But if they want you to cater their same sex wedding or make a cake celebrating that marriage, that is different.  It is the content of the event itself you are asking not to be part of as it violates your beliefs and conscience regarding marriage.  And I gave the example of a photographer and a black rap artist whether the album photo shoot is refused, not because the person is black (and said that if the same guy wanted a family photo taken with him and his kids you should have to do that), but because of the content of the album (lyrics with misogyny, sexual references, vulgarity, violence) you're being asked to help promote with your time and talents

 

I said that religious adoption agencies who choose to focus on two parent, mom and dad households have reasonable scientific basis for doing so.  But above even that, they have freedom of conscience and belief about the marriage and family - a constitutional right no less.

One meta study that attempts to challenge the studies on the matter is not the end of the discussion, like catching the snitch in a Quidditch game in Harry Potter.

 

No, they do not.  And I am not claiming they do.  Reference again my photographer and black rap artist example.  You cannot refuse to take someone's business simply for being black, gay, Hispanic, man or woman, Muslim or atheist.  But that is different from turning down business because what you are being asked to do in terms of facilitating or supporting an event - the content of the activity or event itself - would violate your religious beliefs and freedom of conscience.  You absolutely do have the right to refuse to participate in such things.  

It occurs to me the "power" over the orphan you would apparently grant the adoption agency is not all that different from the power of a woman over her fetus.

If the orphan - in either case - is to be placed paramount, how do you justify controlling their future by stint of your religious beliefs?

In that regard, Shabby is right. Any argument that homosexuals should be arbitrarily ruled out as adoption candidates should only be done on the basis of scientific research.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You mean too lazy to assume you didn't really mean what you actually wrote?  

My understanding of Jesus is that he wasn't in the business of claiming what was "a-ok" and what wasn't.

Course I could be wrong.

No, I mean lazy in that you knew, without even a hint of doubt, that I was listing various things that no one would accuse Jesus of being ok with, yet He did not specifically mention them.  But you chose to go for the weak, lazy canard to avoid engaging the argument.

And your understanding is faulty.  I just pointed out in the very post you responded to some things that Jesus absolutely claimed were not "a-ok."  He wasn't just sitting around spouting a bunch of hippie dippie Moralistic Therapeutic Deism bull**** to give everyone warm feels about themselves.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

It occurs to me the "power" over the orphan you would apparently grant the adoption agency is not all that different from the power of a woman over her fetus.

If the orphan - in either case - is to be placed paramount, how do you justify controlling their future by stint of your religious beliefs?

In that regard, Shabby is right. Any argument that homosexuals should be arbitrarily ruled out as adoption candidates should only be done on the basis of scientific research.

Except, even if I go with your way of thinking here, the logic falls apart in this instance:  if the woman chooses abortion, the fetus dies.  If the agency chooses to focus on two parent households with a mother and a father present, the child gets a loving two parent home, or another agency places them in a different home.

And they aren't being "arbitrarily" ruled out.  Just because you don't like the reasoning, or you want to throw all your chips in on one meta study that happens to support your conclusions, doesn't mean you get to pitch one side's constitutional rights in the garbage in favor of the other.

[creed 1,635]

I know it's not a direct comparison, but it's a good thing we're not talking about an Alabama marriage chapel refusal to marry a 16 and a 40 year old couple because the couple doesn't fit their operating procedures for age limits. Even though the couple are really in love (at the moment), mentally/physically (scientifically) mature and within the parameters of legal consent.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I mean lazy in that you knew, without even a hint of doubt, that I was listing various things that no one would accuse Jesus of being ok with, yet He did not specifically mention them....  

Exactly.  Right along with homosexuality.