Alabama will allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  Right along with homosexuality.

That doesn't mean I'm saying "homosexuality = rape" and you know that.  Don't act you're some simpleton that doesn't understand what was being said.  I don't take you for an idiot so don't take me for one by trying to play this role.  The argument, that you still have yet to rebut, is simple:  Claiming that something must be ok with Jesus because He didn't talk about it specifically is a weak and worthless argument.

[homersapien 11,373]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That doesn't mean I'm saying "homosexuality = rape" and you know that.  Don't act you're some simpleton that doesn't understand what was being said.  I don't take you for an idiot so don't take me for one by trying to play this role.  The argument, that you still have yet to rebut, is simple:  Claiming that something must be ok with Jesus because He didn't talk about it specifically is a weak and worthless argument.

You need to curb your temper.  You started this by calling me "lazy" when what you wrote totally supported my inference.  Perhaps you need to think a little more about what you are actually writing before hitting "enter".

And I never claimed that Jesus was OK with something simply because he didn't mention it.  That's your device.   I am simply pointing out he never spoke against it.

I think Jesus was OK with homosexuality because 1) it is a natural condition and 2) in no way does it conflict with his general message of love for one another. 

At least that's the Jesus I see.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You need to curb your temper.  You started this by calling me "lazy" when what you wrote totally supported my inference.  Perhaps you need to think a little more about what you are actually writing before hitting "enter".

My temper is completely in check.  I just tire of lazy arguments you know aren't true.  You inferred something you knew was BS the second you typed it, you'd just rather muck around on that rather than deal with the argument.

 

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And I never claimed that Jesus was OK with something simply because he didn't mention it.  That's your device.   I am simply pointing out he never spoke against it.

It's not my device at all.  It's the device I'm arguing against and it's the argument shabby was making.  You stepped into that discussion, so I naturally thought that you were taking up his same argument.  

If you're going to mention in the midst of said discussion that "Jesus never mentioned it," then it is to be inferred that you think that tidbit is meaningful as to His attitude toward it.  I'm pointing out, by showing other things I'm pretty sure you'd agree that Jesus wouldn't be kosher with, that His silence on a specific matter doesn't indicate anything other than He simply didn't have the time to sit around and verbally address every particular way in which people might choose to sin under a given category.

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My temper is completely in check.  I just tire of lazy arguments you know aren't true.  You inferred something you knew was BS the second you typed it, you'd just rather muck around on that rather than deal with the argument.

 

It's not my device at all.  It's the device I'm arguing against and it's the argument shabby was making.  You stepped into that discussion, so I naturally thought that you were taking up his same argument.  

If you're going to mention in the midst of said discussion that "Jesus never mentioned it," then it is to be inferred that you think that tidbit is meaningful as to His attitude toward it.  I'm pointing out, by showing other things I'm pretty sure you'd agree that Jesus wouldn't be kosher with, that His silence on a specific matter doesn't indicate anything other than He simply didn't have the time to sit around and verbally address every particular way in which people might choose to sin under a given category.

 

 

Don't tell me what I am thinking.  Maybe you didn't intend to compare homosexuality to rape, but that is exactly what you did, even if it was a mistake on your part.  I am not a mind reader, I read words.

And we don't know Jesus's attitude toward homosexuality.  Your opinion is as much conjecture as mine.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

No, it is not what I did.  It is a ridiculous inference, which if my memory serves me correctly, I have corrected you on before.  So you either have a terrible memory or just prefer to make dumb accusations than to deal with the point.  Homosexual activity is not rape.  Rape is not adultery.  Adultery is not sexual assault.  Lust is not murder.  Child sexual abuse is not sexual promiscuity amongst adults.  I think you understand this.  In fact I know you do and you know that I never said otherwise.  You'd just rather go off on a tangent to make the argument about me than the actual argument.

I do know Jesus' attitude about homosexual activity because I know Jesus' attitude about sexual activity in general.  He didn't have to address it specifically for me to know this anymore than he needed to talk about orgies for me to know His attitude about that.  Jesus, over and again, reaffirms the original paradigm for sex and marriage from the beginning - one man, one woman, in marriage.  Whether he's talking to the Pharisees about divorce, the woman at the well who had several husbands and was now living with a man she wasn't married to, the woman caught in adultery, or discussing lust and adultery in his teachings, it always comes back to the reaffirmation of the Old Testament sexual ethic.  Period.  End of story.  Not once does he relax any of its requirements in the least, in fact he tightens them.  Anything that falls outside of this dynamic of one man/one woman in marriage is sin, whether it's gay, straight or bi.  To try and shrug and pretend He might think otherwise or that He doesn't care is silliness.

[PUB78 1,358]

On 5/12/2017 at 3:16 PM, ArgoEagle said:

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

My bad. Thought you were referring to me.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 5:11 PM, PUB78 said:

My bad. Thought you were referring to me.

No worries. I know what you are about pub.

[Grumps 3,704]

When Jesus was teaching the Jews in Israel, the Jews were familiar with the Law of Moses. They were living under the Mosaic Covenant which explicitly condemned homosexuality. Unless there was some precipitating issue that would force Jesus to comment on homosexuality, the only reasonable conclusion — especially in light of the fact that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as the very Word of God (which was infallible) — is that His view of homosexuality was the Old Testament’s view (i.e., God’s view) of homosexuality.

Obviously, OUR job is to just love each other, no matter what Jesus thinks about homosexuality.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Sees thread, reads it:

[PUB78 1,358]

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 7:09 AM, ArgoEagle said:

No worries. I know what you are about pub.

Yes, on the road this weekend trying to find a location for our son's wedding rehearsal dinner, very busy and in a hurry checking this site. Should have realized  you were talking about the other poster and not me, plus that you were one of the "good guys".

[triangletiger 1,599]

In related news, an appeals court in Kentucky has sided with a Christian t-shirt printer who refused to print gay pride t-shirts.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-05-12/ruling-refusal-to-print-gay-pride-shirts-not-discrimination

 

The court makes a distinction between discriminating against an individual or group on the basis of sexual orientation and discriminating against a message or point of view.  Since the t-shirt printer is not refusing to do business with gay people in general, he is within his rights to refuse to print t-shirts promote a pojnt of view with which he disagrees.  An important question to ask here is, what would it mean if the ruling went the other way?  Would t-shirt printers (and other businesses) then be forced to condone messages with which they disagree?  What if the group trying to get t-shirts printed were a white supremacist organization that were promoting their message?  

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

18 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

In related news, an appeals court in Kentucky has sided with a Christian t-shirt printer who refused to print gay pride t-shirts.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-05-12/ruling-refusal-to-print-gay-pride-shirts-not-discrimination

 

The court makes a distinction between discriminating against an individual or group on the basis of sexual orientation and discriminating against a message or point of view.  Since the t-shirt printer is not refusing to do business with gay people in general, he is within his rights to refuse to print t-shirts promote a pojnt of view with which he disagrees.  An important question to ask here is, what would it mean if the ruling went the other way?  Would t-shirt printers (and other businesses) then be forced to condone messages with which they disagree?  What if the group trying to get t-shirts printed were a white supremacist organization that were promoting their message?  

I like that an LBGT advocacy group pointed out this kind of interpretation benefits us all. Should an LBGT owned tshirt shop be forced, under penalty of law, to print shirts for Westboro Baptist Church to use in one of their protests?  Of course not.  And if they choose to decline, it's not because they are discriminating over religion.  It's about using one's time, talents and resources to facilitate or help promote a message or event that violates one's conscience.  I've put this in First Amendment terms over the gay wedding stuff because that's a specific constitutional issue, but truly - anyone should be able to decline business that would put them in the position of helping spread, facilitate or promote an activity or event that one has conscience objections to.

[AU4life1 5]

I can say from experience that one of the best parents I have ever met was a gay couple. The daughter that they adopted is  graduating from High School this year. She is in the top 3% of her class. She is a well rounded individual that is proud of her moms even though she is not gay. She has never felt ashamed of her moms. She knows that they love her and will do anything to help her. I just don't understand the homophobia that the christian community has about taking care of children. If a gay couple will love and raise a child please let them do it. I have worked with foster kids. Trust me they don't care if their prospective parents are gay or not. They just want to be loved.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

1 hour ago, AU4life1 said:

I can say from experience that one of the best parents I have ever met was a gay couple. The daughter that they adopted is  graduating from High School this year. She is in the top 3% of her class. She is a well rounded individual that is proud of her moms even though she is not gay. She has never felt ashamed of her moms. She knows that they love her and will do anything to help her. I just don't understand the homophobia that the christian community has about taking care of children. If a gay couple will love and raise a child please let them do it. I have worked with foster kids. Trust me they don't care if their prospective parents are gay or not. They just want to be loved.

I would like to explain this to you. I am not trying to be confrontational, just want to help you understand the biblical, Christian view here. God clearly stated in Genesis and Romans that homosexuality is unnatural, wicked and sinful. If a gay couple adopts a child, then the sin they choose to live in is exposed to the child every day, and also the child is deprived of having a mother and a father figure, which God naturally intended to be the way to go. You may or may not agree with this biblical Christian view, but that is how it is and it is not going to change. Hope this helps you out on understanding.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, ArgoEagle said:

I would like to explain this to you. I am not trying to be confrontational, just want to help you understand the biblical, Christian view here. God clearly stated in Genesis and Romans that homosexuality is unnatural, wicked and sinful. If a gay couple adopts a child, then the sin they choose to live in is exposed to the child every day, and also the child is deprived of having a mother and a father figure, which God naturally intended to be the way to go. You may or may not agree with this biblical Christian view, but that is how it is and it is not going to change. Hope this helps you out on understanding.

Irony.

[alexava 6,973]

On 5/18/2017 at 2:25 PM, ArgoEagle said:

I would like to explain this to you. I am not trying to be confrontational, just want to help you understand the biblical, Christian view here. God clearly stated in Genesis and Romans that homosexuality is unnatural, wicked and sinful. If a gay couple adopts a child, then the sin they choose to live in is exposed to the child every day, and also the child is deprived of having a mother and a father figure, which God naturally intended to be the way to go. You may or may not agree with this biblical Christian view, but that is how it is and it is not going to change. Hope this helps you out on understanding.

You can have sinful, I guess but unnatural and wicked are simply not accurate. 

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 7:50 PM, alexava said:

You can have sinful, I guess but unnatural and wicked are simply not accurate. 

Wrong. Genesis describes it as wicked. Romans describes it as unnatural.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Wrong. Genesis describes it as wicked. Romans describes it as unnatural.

Genesis also said woman was produced from a man's rib, so that hardly qualifies as a credible source.

So, I take it you approve of persecuting homosexuals since Genesis informs you they are "wicked"?

[alexava 6,973]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Wrong. Genesis describes it as wicked. Romans describes it as unnatural.

I am not arguing what it says. I am saying it is not correct. 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Genesis also said woman was produced from a man's rib, so that hardly qualifies as a credible source.

So, I take it you approve of persecuting homosexuals since Genesis informs you they are "wicked"?

I suppose you have proof that the first woman was NOT produced from a man's rib? Your second sentence is even more laughable. Your arguments are more dishonest than normal on this topic.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

26 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I suppose you have proof that the first woman was NOT produced from a man's rib? Your second sentence is even more laughable. Your arguments are more dishonest than normal on this topic.

That's why I have Homer ignored. He is the only one on my list b/c he never has had, does not now, and never will have anything to say worth listening to.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, ArgoEagle said:

That's why I have Homer ignored. He is the only one on my list b/c he never has had, does not now, and never will have anything to say worth listening to.

I have been trying harder lately to look for value in the posts of everyone who seems to be giving his/her honest opinion, whether or not I agree with them. When homer is honest he can be very insightful and can help me understand things in a more comprehensive way. A few years back, the BBQ House (a joint between Troy and Montgomery) had on a sign out front that said, "What a person sees depends mostly upon what they are looking for." I like that. If I look for value in a person's opinion then I usually find it. If I look for ignorance or arrogance I usually find that also. I advise you to look for the good in homer and the rest of us...maybe you'll find some!

[SaltyTiger 7,806]

15 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I have been trying harder lately to look for value in the posts of everyone who seems to be giving his/her honest opinion, whether or not I agree with them. When homer is honest he can be very insightful and can help me understand things in a more comprehensive way. A few years back, the BBQ House (a joint between Troy and Montgomery) had on a sign out front that said, "What a person sees depends mostly upon what they are looking for." I like that. If I look for value in a person's opinion then I usually find it. If I look for ignorance or arrogance I usually find that also. I advise you to look for the good in homer and the rest of us...maybe you'll find some!

Sweet post Grumps. Almost brings me to tears. You forgot to tell Argo to milk a mule the next he wants fresh milk.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

I suppose you have proof that the first woman was NOT produced from a man's rib? Your second sentence is even more laughable. Your arguments are more dishonest than normal on this topic.

Sorry, I am not following you.

If you believe that Genisis is literally true, there's nothing more I can say.

Regarding the second comment, based on my definition of "wicked"  - which is synanomous with evil - why would anyone not want to persecute a wicked person?  Should we tolerate evil?

I don't get what you mean by dishonest.  Please point out any element of what I posted that you consider "dishonest".

Thanks

[homersapien 11,373]

21 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

That's why I have Homer ignored. He is the only one on my list b/c he never has had, does not now, and never will have anything to say worth listening to.

Maybe not, from your perspective.