Chick-fil-A banned from opening at San Antonio airport, council members cite LGBTQ issues

[homersapien 11,366]

42 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Marriage or the definition of the word has already changed throughout history. Same sex marriage was around for awhile, disappeared for a bit, and now is back. It is what it is.

The problem is people thinking that the government should be deciding this at all. That everyone is so busy arguing that the government SHOULD allow this or make that illegal and no one saying "Why is any long term relationship I have the governments business?"

People should have the right to enter into relationships with one another without fear that someone elses petty emotions over the definition of a word may take away their basic human freedoms. Which is another problem a lot of people seem to have, your thoughts and feelings on a subject with no actual evidence or facts of physical or proprietorial harm should not constitute a reason for taking away someones life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness. 

 

While I generally agree, the government provides various legal sanctions regarding marriage, which I think is the main issue here. In other words, this is more of a civil rights issue than a religious one.

Churches are basically free to believe and act on their own.

[Mims44 1,867]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I agree that the best thing that could probably happen would be to just remove government from the marriage debate altogether and let various religious organizations and their secular equivalents perform and recognize as marriage those things which align with their views on the institution.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.

Well at least we agree 100% on everything but those last 7 words. If something is built, it can be tore down... though I will admit the chances for this are very slim.

 

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And of course as we know now, it's not as simple as just taking a "live and let live" attitude.  At one time that was the argument for stuff like this, but now the force of government sanction is being used as a cudgel to enforce thought and run people who don't comply out of the public square.  There is a difference in passive rights - that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing you mention where we don't bother regulating who someone is having sex with, who they choose to live with and build a life together with.  Even before legally sanctioned marriage, there was nothing preventing someone - or any group of someones - from making arrangements encoding their relationship in various legal ways.  But it wasn't really about those things.  It was about an "active" right - societal sanction.  And as an intended side effect of that societal sanction, the ability to coerce those who disagree into going along with it.  It was no longer "live and let live" but "accept, bless, and celebrate," and if you don't then we will find various ways to hound you out of business and drive you from the marketplace of ideas.

You gotta get along to go along, and people who fight against the changes of a society will have a harder road than those who don't.

The people who believed interracial marriage was an abomination had a very hard road to travel in the 60's, they ultimately lost. I believe those that think homosexual marriage to be wrong are travelling that hard road right now, but will almost definitely lose completely, since in our country over time equality always seems to eventually win out. And people can say it's not about hate or rights, but when the basic arguments of these people are "Sure, we can be equal and I don't hate you. But I DESERVE this legal right and you don't because you are 'X'" I see the fangs through the smile.

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Being able to find a few niche instances of people doing odd stuff in history isn't really an indicator that it was accepted by the overwhelming majority of humanity.

 

Well, the problem is there are various government benefits and such tied to the institution of marriage.  It streamlines inheritance, power of attorney, end of life health decisions, changes how your taxes are calculated.  So while getting the gov't out of it sounds good on paper, it's not practical in reality.

And of course as we know now, it's not as simple as just taking a "live and let live" attitude.  At one time that was the argument for stuff like this, but now the force of government sanction is being used as a cudgel to enforce thought and run people who don't comply out of the public square.  There is a difference in passive rights - that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing you mention where we don't bother regulating who someone is having sex with, who they choose to live with and build a life together with.  Even before legally sanctioned marriage, there was nothing preventing someone - or any group of someones - from making arrangements encoding their relationship in various legal ways.  But it wasn't really about those things.  It was about an "active" right - societal sanction.  And as an intended side effect of that societal sanction, the ability to coerce those who disagree into going along with it.  It was no longer "live and let live" but "accept, bless, and celebrate," and if you don't then we will find various ways to hound you out of business and drive you from the marketplace of ideas.

I agree that the best thing that could probably happen would be to just remove government from the marriage debate altogether and let various religious organizations and their secular equivalents perform and recognize as marriage those things which align with their views on the institution.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.

C'mon Titan, that's equivalent to saying civil rights laws enabled the government to "cudgel" one's sincere, religious-based beliefs that the races should be segregated.

The old miscegenation laws would be the most relevant example to this discussion.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

C'mon Titan, that's equivalent to saying civil rights laws enabled the government to "cudgel" one's sincere, religious-based beliefs that the races should be segregated.

The old miscegenation laws would be the most relevant example to this discussion.

Just because things have some similarities doesn't mean they are analogous.

[Grumps 3,704]

Not that anyone cares, but:

Just for the record, I absolutely believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights that my wife and I have. Also, I don't know of any place in the Bible where "marriage" is defined. I don't see why "Christians" want to claim a Biblical definition of marriage. I agree that two men (or two women) getting married has no effect on my marriage at all.

I also believe that homosexuality (defined as sexual activity between same-sex people) is just as sinful as adultery and pornography, and that God loves homosexuals and adulterers and pornographers just as much as He loves me.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

34 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Also, I don't know of any place in the Bible where "marriage" is defined.

I have always felt the Bible makes God's intent pretty clear. Also, when he issued  instructions about the ark Noah knew better than to load two male Giraffes.

[Grumps 3,704]

41 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have always felt the Bible makes God's intent pretty clear. Also, when he issued  instructions about the ark Noah knew better than to load two male Giraffes.

I agree with you that God's plan is clear, but where does it say that God's plan is called "marriage" and that "Christians" should bash everyone that who disagrees with them. I believe that God prefers for me to love His children more than He wants me to defend His honor. The God I know can defend Himself quite well.

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

Not that anyone cares, but:

Just for the record, I absolutely believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights that my wife and I have. Also, I don't know of any place in the Bible where "marriage" is defined. I don't see why "Christians" want to claim a Biblical definition of marriage. I agree that two men (or two women) getting married has no effect on my marriage at all.

I also believe that homosexuality (defined as sexual activity between same-sex people) is just as sinful as adultery and pornography, and that God loves homosexuals and adulterers and pornographers just as much as He loves me.

I had a discussion a while back on another forum about this. I was reminded ad nauseum that "homosexuality is not just a sin but is an ABOMINATION!!!!!"

Well, did you know there are at least 60 Abominations listed in the Bible, some list up to 100.

 

[Gowebb11 9,314]

Funny thing is a lot of people protest and demonize a lot of businesses now, clueless to the fact that they are investors of that business through their 401K plan. 

[homersapien 11,366]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have always felt the Bible makes God's intent pretty clear. Also, when he issued  instructions about the ark Noah knew better than to load two male Giraffes.

Presumably, you are speaking figuratively?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

17 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't know of any place in the Bible where "marriage" is defined. I don't see why "Christians" want to claim a Biblical definition of marriage.

Like a textbook or a legal document?  No.  But it's spoken of multiple places in unmistakeable terms, not only in what is said, but in what is specifically not said.  A couple come to mind immediately:

 

Quote

Matthew 19 (as well as Mark 10)

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

Quote

1 Timothy 3

3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 

Paul speaks of marriage and divorce in other places as well, always in the context of one man and one woman, both affirming the sacredness of the sexes involved, AND the number involved  And though polygamy was prevalent in the ancient world, never once does the Bible speak positively about the practice.  Never once amongst the many blessings surrounding marriage does God ever mention, "multiple wives" as one of the signs of His blessing.  In fact, it's hard to come away from most passages that speak of the practice with anything other than a sense that it's not God's original design, not what He created, not what He wants from people.  It invariably brings trouble and heartache anytime God's people engaged in it. 

Sex and marriage are inextricably tied together in Scripture and that is *always* reserved for - one man and one woman and *always* the context of marriage.  Everything that departs from that is considered wrong and sinful.

Now I fully agree with you that the sins of gay people are no worse than the sins of straight people.  But I disagree that the Bible doesn't give us a clear understanding of what marriage is and what it isn't.

[augolf1716 21,109]

21 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have always felt the Bible makes God's intent pretty clear. Also, when he issued  instructions about the ark Noah knew better than to load two male Giraffes.

Oh lord the visuals in my head..thanks a lot

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Presumably, you are speaking figuratively?

No.  

[AU64 10,122]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 9:36 AM, homersapien said:

Churches are basically free to believe and act on their own.

Churches ...maybe?    but not church members......that's the issue I think.....if you don't buy into the LBGT view, they will try to shut down your business...not because you ever did anything to them.....but just because you don't think the same way. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/9/2019 at 8:36 AM, homersapien said:

Churches are basically free to believe and act on their own.

Not necessarily true of Roman Catholic Church (which is one of the reasons I find Catholicism preferable). You can go virtually to any Mass in the world on any day of the week and it’s the same as elsewhere.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

27 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not necessarily true of Roman Catholic Church (which is one of the reasons I find Catholicism preferable). You can go virtually to any Mass in the world on any day of the week and it’s the same as elsewhere.

Personally  I don't find that to be a good thing.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Personally  I don't find that to be a good thing.

no worries

[homersapien 11,366]

11 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not necessarily true of Roman Catholic Church (which is one of the reasons I find Catholicism preferable). You can go virtually to any Mass in the world on any day of the week and it’s the same as elsewhere.

I was speaking of churches in the general sense, not necessarily a particular congregation. Regardless, the Roman Catholic Church is free to do whatever they want, and given members of that church are free to walk if they disagree with the hierarchy.

[homersapien 11,366]

11 hours ago, AU64 said:

Churches ...maybe?    but not church members......that's the issue I think.....if you don't buy into the LBGT view, they will try to shut down your business...not because you ever did anything to them.....but just because you don't think the same way. 

People have the right not to do business with whomever they please for whatever reason they want.  They also have the right to organize like-minded customers.

This is the hazard for a business owner taking public stances on controversial subjects.

[homersapien 11,366]

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

No.  

So you actually believe the Noah's ark fable as presented in the bible is literally true? 

And by that I don't mean that somewhere along the line someone built a large boat - for whatever reason - and it eventually evolved into the myth.  I am asking if you think a flood covered the entire earth and the ark saved all of the land dwelling animals in the world?

 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So you actually believe the Noah's ark fable as presented in the bible is literally true?  You think a flood covered the entire earth and the ark saved all of the land dwelling animals in the world?

 

It is written that way. I have never considered how the fish were handled. Any ideas? you are the brilliant scientist 

[homersapien 11,366]

27 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

It is written that way. I have never considered how the fish were handled. Any ideas? you are the brilliant scientist 

Is that a yes? 

Please just answer the question. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

43 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

It is written that way. I have never considered how the fish were handled. Any ideas? you are the brilliant scientist 

Wikipedia link, but pretty comprehensive.  You should learn about the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Sumaria. Written more than a millenia before Noah's flood story is believed to have taken place.  Same basic story.  God's get angry with mankind and designates one person and his family to survive a flood via a large boat, which also carries species from all animals.  Interesting stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Wikipedia link, but pretty comprehensive.  You should learn about the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Sumaria. Written more than a millenia before Noah's flood story is believed to have taken place.  Same basic story.  God's get angry with mankind and designates one person and his family to survive a flood via a large boat, which also carries species from all animals.  Interesting stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

I don't necessarily have a problem with that and the story of Noah referring to the same event, or rather, both being mythological accounts of some widespread flood event.  If something on this scale happened, you wouldn't expect just one group of people to have experienced it and had oral or written stories about it.  And those stories are necessarily told from the perspective of their own cultures and understandings of the world around them.  Now, in using the term "mythological" I don't mean it in a pejorative sense - like dismissively regarding them as "fairy tales."  I just mean it in the "non-literal" sense.  It's something akin to an allegorical account describing a real event, but told in a way to highlight certain moral principles or truths. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 hours ago, AU64 said:

Churches ...maybe?    but not church members......that's the issue I think.....if you don't buy into the LBGT view, they will try to shut down your business...not because you ever did anything to them.....but just because you don't think the same way. 

Please, please, please consider the irony here. The Christian church- whether according to scripture or according to common misinterpretation of scripture, which makes no difference to me because both come from the brains of human beings- says that homosexuality is wrong, and that homosexuals are sinning simply by being born homosexual. And certain businesses claim that they should be denied the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

But you're claiming that they are infringing upon the rights of "church members" simply by choosing not to patronize the businesses that would deny them their civil liberties? 

I expect that from several of these knuckle draggers around here, but not you. Oh, and I have to isolate this part:

Quote

that's the issue I think.....if you don't buy into the LBGT view,

1. Homosexuality is not a "view". You really have to acknowledge that. Seriously. You have to. 

2. That is not the issue. There is no issue, or at least there would be no issue if humans didn't invent one. (I won't blame Christians since some other religions and cultures are WAY more screwed up about it.) Seriously. It's all just made up. Maybe some guy in a desert made it up several thousand years ago when he wrote some stories, or maybe folks made it up since then. But it's definitely an invention of man. I don't know why people choose to get upset about things that don't affect them but that's exactly what you're doing.