DescentBB

I wonder if what is behind these laws is a lot of media attention being paid to exaggerate what is in reality a truly dead on arrival policy that never had a chance to succeed and the instigators knew that from the start. Like voting to abolish Obamacare a million times in three months, etc.

Take the Arizona example, didn't the Governor already veto a similar attempt recently in the past?
If so why does the media act like they are gathered outside the courtroom with baited breath for a jury's verdict when they really know she is going to veto it again.

I'm just guessing here but that would at least explain the build up.

We get politicians around the country that play to their districts and if for them creating the image of having fought the 'good fight against gay's' is typical....and those kind of things typically go nowhere....maybe the only thing new here is the attention the media is putting on it to help build momentum for the overall effort?

Wild guess on my part. But if that is what they are doing it is working, for me anyway.
I'm not a devout christian. I'm not even sure I can call myself one at all. But I do remember the lessons that makes me think most churches and preachers etc. would remind us all that Jesus wouldn't vote for that law.
Having the prospect of so many of my fellow citizens acting out in such a bigoted fashion makes me want to support what is, more often than not, my political enemy on this issue.

And as much as I hate having professional meddlers and agitators get to successfully pull my strings I find myself hoping I that is the truth behind what is otherwise a really bizarre situation.

Will Robinson wrote:I wonder if what is behind these laws is a lot of media attention being paid to exaggerate what is in reality a truly dead on arrival policy that never had a chance to succeed and the instigators knew that from the start. Like voting to abolish Obamacare a million times in three months, etc.

Take the Arizona example, didn't the Governor already veto a similar attempt recently in the past?
If so why does the media act like they are gathered outside the courtroom with baited breath for a jury's verdict when they really know she is going to veto it again.

really, Will, the only one creating that issue is Brewer herself, by dancing around the matter. Had she declared, before it even passed, that a veto was a given, no issue.

Having the prospect of so many of my fellow citizens acting out in such a bigoted fashion makes me want to support what is, more often than not, my political enemy on this issue.

And as much as I hate having professional meddlers and agitators get to successfully pull my strings I find myself hoping I that is the truth behind what is otherwise a really bizarre situation.

you put, very well, the exact reason why I scratch my head on this sudden flurry of bills across the nation. It seems senseless, and politically suicidal.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I wonder if what is behind these laws is a lot of media attention being paid to exaggerate what is in reality a truly dead on arrival policy that never had a chance to succeed and the instigators knew that from the start. Like voting to abolish Obamacare a million times in three months, etc.

Take the Arizona example, didn't the Governor already veto a similar attempt recently in the past?
If so why does the media act like they are gathered outside the courtroom with baited breath for a jury's verdict when they really know she is going to veto it again.

really, Will, the only one creating that issue is Brewer herself, by dancing around the matter. Had she declared, before it even passed, that a veto was a given, no issue.

She would likely not weigh in in advance before she vetoed it because then for the week or so that she has come out against those congressmen the media gets to pit them against her every day and night...in effect pitting her against a pocket of her constituents who supported the law.
It is common for a politicians who has to anger a portion of the voters no matter which way they go to want to do it with as low a profile as possible and to appear to empathize with the group she ultimately rules against... right now, all the hype of 'She might sign it' gives her some benefit from the ambiguity.
Remember Clinton biting his lip staring at the camera with those puppy dog eyes saying "I've never worked harder to avoid having to do this...(raising taxes I think it was)"?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Having the prospect of so many of my fellow citizens acting out in such a bigoted fashion makes me want to support what is, more often than not, my political enemy on this issue.

And as much as I hate having professional meddlers and agitators get to successfully pull my strings I find myself hoping I that is the truth behind what is otherwise a really bizarre situation.

you put, very well, the exact reason why I scratch my head on this sudden flurry of bills across the nation. It seems senseless, and politically suicidal.

Is it a sudden flurry? Or is it typical posturing as usual on the part of the same representatives who have those constituents only the media finds the narrative is served by amplifying their stance right now? Making it seem big to get a bigger push back? The push back needed to serve further success of the sweeping gay marriage trend.

If not then are we to believe america is trending toward a parallel intolerance akin to fundamentalist radical islam? I just don't see that in every day life. And I'm down here amongst the stereotypical offenders!

If politicians can't represent the views of their constituents, what good are they?

Since when are representatives expected to act solely as a barometer of the majority opinions of their constituents?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What you're failing to acknowledge, TC, is the difference between serving a gay person as a business, and becoming creatively involved in their activities. There is one right way to deal with a homosexual, as a Chrisitan, and that is directly--not to use a business to try to hurt them. I have served homosexuals in my places of work in the past, and I've always treated them fairly.

I guess I don't quite understand you ST. You stated in one post you personally wouldn't bake that cake or take those photos, and I'm assuming you're referring to recent incidents related to businesses who refused to perform services for gay customers. If you're running a bakery, baking a wedding cake for customers is part your business. If you're running a photography studio, your business is to take wedding pictures of people is part of your services. So, my question to you is, based on your religious beliefs, would you also refuse to do business with these gay customers if you were the owner of either of these businesses?

callmeslick wrote:Brewer vetoes bill

The one intellegent decision to ever come out of her office.

It seems like she did it more based on pragmatism than idealism, but hell, whatever works.

Top Gun wrote:Since when are representatives expected to act solely as a barometer of the majority opinions of their constituents?

If they don't...they don't get re-elected.

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Brewer vetoes bill

The one intellegent decision to ever come out of her office.

She was bullied into making the decision...

It was still the right decision to make.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What you're failing to acknowledge, TC, is the difference between serving a gay person as a business, and becoming creatively involved in their activities. There is one right way to deal with a homosexual, as a Chrisitan, and that is directly--not to use a business to try to hurt them. I have served homosexuals in my places of work in the past, and I've always treated them fairly.

I guess I don't quite understand you ST. You stated in one post you personally wouldn't bake that cake or take those photos, and I'm assuming you're referring to recent incidents related to businesses who refused to perform services for gay customers. If you're running a bakery, baking a wedding cake for customers is part your business. If you're running a photography studio, your business is to take wedding pictures of people is part of your services. So, my question to you is, based on your religious beliefs, would you also refuse to do business with these gay customers if you were the owner of either of these businesses?

I think the simplest way to put it is that on a certain level I don't have anything against gay people, but what they're doing is wrong. The Bible is very clear, and nature itself begs commentary as well. So I would serve them inasmuch as I would serve anyone, as a business, but certain services involve a degree of personal involvement that would go against my conscience. The Bible tells us that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination...

Leviticus 20 wrote:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Dictionary.com wrote: a·bom·i·na·tion
[uh-bom-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2.
intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3.
a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.

So in certain aspects of business, you would be asking me to take something that God considers abominable, and do my best to make it attractive. That is what you're doing when you're decorating a cake, taking a photo, or making a website, which is why I use those examples. I'm not cherry-picking instances where I could get away with trying to express some sort of hatred towards these people. Jesus died for them as much as for me, but someone who has been a homosexual but has not repented and turned away from it (the Bible says they can be delivered from it) is courting death and will be judged for living in a way that is abominable to God. Not only that, but their life is being destroyed. It wouldn't be very neighborly to just go with the flow and act like everything's copacetic. The older I get, the more I learn that dealing with people is a complicated thing, and there's a right and many wrong ways to let people know that what they're doing is wrong without trying to infringe on their responsibility to deal with their own life. But I think often-times you can't go wrong with just being very straight-forward with people, no matter what they might think of it, while looking to your own motivations and trying to have a healthy degree of humility about it all.

ST raises an interesting point.
I don't accept that selling a gay person gasoline or serving him a steak dinner is asking one to do anything contrary to their religion but maybe asking one to adorn or help celebrate an act that is against their religion is going too far.

ST, what would you do if your kid(s) were gay? Would you kill them because of it? Would you disown them? I'm interested in knowing this.
Yes, homosexuality is not "normal" in terms of human procreation but what can we do if it's a chemical imbalance in the mind? Even if it's a personal choice, why does it matter? What if they don't believe in God? Why should you impose "your" religious beliefs on them? Isn't that what the world is fighting against the terrorists for them trying to impose their religious way of life on others?

What if one of these gay people would find the cure to AIDS or Cancer of God forbid save the life of someone you know. Would you refuse help from a Gay person that could save your life etc?

Sorry but I just find it very immature to refuse service to a gay person for any reason. I find it backward thinking and so archaic. Time to get on with the changes happening in the world.

Another interesting twist from CDN_Merlin.
ST has a daughter who is gay...she is getting married...should ST refuse to attend the wedding?

tunnelcat wrote:I guess I don't quite understand you ST. You stated in one post you personally wouldn't bake that cake or take those photos, and I'm assuming you're referring to recent incidents related to businesses who refused to perform services for gay customers. If you're running a bakery, baking a wedding cake for customers is part your business. If you're running a photography studio, your business is to take wedding pictures of people is part of your services. So, my question to you is, based on your religious beliefs, would you also refuse to do business with these gay customers if you were the owner of either of these businesses?

Here's what I'd compare it to: Selling tobacco to people, or selling alcohol to someone that I knew was an alcoholic. I don't want to treat the people differently as an individual, but I also don't want to assist them in behavior that I don't agree with.

Here's something that I think has been lost in all of our homophobism: the Bible teaches that God considers all forms of sexual sin an abomination, including heterosexual adultery and fornication.... so I don't think that homosexuality should be as singled out as it is these days. If you want to rip Christians, I'd say rip them for disagreeing with all forms of sexual conduct outside of Christian marriage.

(I could get more into Sodom/Gomorrah and the beginning of Romans if we want to... but I won't for the moment.)

CDN_Merlin wrote:ST, what would you do if your kid(s) were [sinful]? Would you kill them because of it? Would you disown them? I'm interested in knowing this.
Yes, [sin] is not "normal" in terms of [how we were originally created] but what can we do [since it's something we inherit from Adam]? Even if it's a personal choice, why does it matter? What if they don't believe in God? Why should you impose "your" religious beliefs on them? Isn't that what the world is fighting against the terrorists for them trying to impose their religious way of life on others?

What if one of these [sinful] people would find the cure to AIDS or Cancer of God forbid save the life of someone you know. Would you refuse help from a [sinful] person that could save your life etc?

Sorry but I just find it very immature to refuse service to a [sinful] person for any reason. I find it backward thinking and so archaic. Time to get on with the changes happening in the world.

I modified above, and my answer is that I'd try my best to love the person but hate the sin.

As for imposing beliefs: first, we all do it to each other - you're trying to do it to ST. Second, because our beliefs dictate that all are subject to God's law whether they believe it or not.

As for refusing service: let me ask you this: Would you help someone commit suicide? Would you help someone rape a child? Would you serve coffee to someone that you knew was a rapist? My answers would be no, no, and yes. I see homosexual behavior both as self-destructive and ultimately society-destructive. Why should I be required to help someone hurt themselves and others? On the other hand, I'm right there in the lot of self-destructive people with my sin... so serving them coffee (which isn't directly helping them in their destructive behavior) is like serving myself coffee.

snoopy wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:ST, what would you do if your kid(s) were [sinful]? Would you kill them because of it? Would you disown them? I'm interested in knowing this.
Yes, [sin] is not "normal" in terms of [how we were originally created] but what can we do [since it's something we inherit from Adam]? Even if it's a personal choice, why does it matter? What if they don't believe in God? Why should you impose "your" religious beliefs on them? Isn't that what the world is fighting against the terrorists for them trying to impose their religious way of life on others?

What if one of these [sinful] people would find the cure to AIDS or Cancer of God forbid save the life of someone you know. Would you refuse help from a [sinful] person that could save your life etc?

Sorry but I just find it very immature to refuse service to a [sinful] person for any reason. I find it backward thinking and so archaic. Time to get on with the changes happening in the world.

I modified above, and my answer is that I'd try my best to love the person but hate the sin.

As for imposing beliefs: first, we all do it to each other - you're trying to do it to ST. Second, because our beliefs dictate that all are subject to God's law whether they believe it or not.

As for refusing service: let me ask you this: Would you help someone commit suicide? Would you help someone rape a child? Would you serve coffee to someone that you knew was a rapist? My answers would be no, no, and yes. I see homosexual behavior both as self-destructive and ultimately society-destructive. Why should I be required to help someone hurt themselves and others? On the other hand, I'm right there in the lot of self-destructive people with my sin... so serving them coffee (which isn't directly helping them in their destructive behavior) is like serving myself coffee.

My answer is DEPENDS, NO, YES.
If someone is in major pain due to some illness, I agree with assisted suicide. I think this is overkill. I've had to serve someone in my past career that I knew was a pedophile and knew personally.

Serving a homosexual person is not an issue for me. Serving a known rapist is an issue but I do my job anyways. Everyone has committed "sins" according to the Bible or any moral code you follow. No one is perfect. So why be unwilling to serve gays when for instance that person refusing to do the serving could be a rapist, adultery etc??

To me it's just all the thing that we should just all try to get long. It's a small world and there is no escaping homosexuality. Yes, if everyone was gay then mankind would die off but we are all not gay and I really doubt that will happen.

I think an important distinction is being lost here, that being…

There is a big difference between refusing to do any given job, and refusing to do work for a particular person. (for being gay, for example)

I believe that is why slick made the mistake of saying the gay print shop is legally obligated to print the “God Hates Fags” signs.

Any business that has its doors open to the general public, is obligated to work for that public…but, that being said, any business or person always has the right to turn down any given job, they don’t want to do…for just about any reason.

ST is walking a fine line…because he would refuse to work for a homosexual, even if the work did not promote the homosexual lifestyle, which would have to be considered discrimination…of the wrong kind. (as long as I understand him correctly)

Back to the “God Hates Fag” signs I have an obligation to protect the well being of my employees while on my premises, so expecting my gay press operator to stand and watch the words “God Hates Fags” go by his face for 3 hours would be wrong.

So yea, a distinction must be made between turning down a given job, and discriminating against someone for being gay…or whatever.

..............................

Now getting back to Thorne and his fine line…if he has his web site design company open to the general public, he cannot legally refuse to work for gay people, on the other hand if the gay person wants Thorne to do work that is personally objectionable, then he has every right to refuse.

And that is how you strike the proper balance between his rights and the customers.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think the simplest way to put it is that on a certain level I don't have anything against gay people, but what they're doing is wrong. The Bible is very clear, and nature itself begs commentary as well. So I would serve them inasmuch as I would serve anyone, as a business, but certain services involve a degree of personal involvement that would go against my conscience. The Bible tells us that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination...

Leviticus 20 wrote:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

See it always gets me when people whip out this verse as a justification for their feelings towards homosexuality, because they're usually utterly ignoring the context in which it should be placed. The statues in Leviticus were a legal code for the Israelites of 3500 years ago, a group which knew essentially nothing about human biology or psychology. How anyone can sit there with a straight face and say that this statement should apply as-written to the 21st century, with all we've learned about human behavior and development...it's beyond absurd. Also note that other statements in Leviticus forbid the consumption of shellfish and the wearing of garments made of more than one material: are we to treat those as equally-binding today? Come on and use some critical thinking.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Brewer vetoes bill

The one intellegent decision to ever come out of her office.

She was bullied into making the decision...

You mean by businesses and the NFL? I thought the free market was your Holy Grail of ideologies woody? Obviously, Brewer kowtowed to the free market and not the theocrats. How does the Republican Party deal with those opposing forces?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think the simplest way to put it is that on a certain level I don't have anything against gay people, but what they're doing is wrong. The Bible is very clear, and nature itself begs commentary as well. So I would serve them inasmuch as I would serve anyone, as a business, but certain services involve a degree of personal involvement that would go against my conscience. The Bible tells us that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination...

The Bible is a religious text. Last I checked, the U.S. is a secular society made up of many races, creeds and religions. We aren't all Bible-thumping Christians. Secular societies are not ruled or run as a Biblical Theocracy. You keep forgetting that not all of us believe in, or support, in a lot of what the Bible says. Thus, the public sphere should be treated as secular space, not theocratic space. So when people, even Christians, have to deal with others in a business setting, in the public sphere, there needs to be public accommodation in order to not violate another person's civil rights. Christians don't have to like or agree with the way other law abiding people live their lives, they should still offer a modicum of respect when dealing with them. Christians are still free to live their own lives as they choose within the confines of their own private lives.

If they DON'T want to deal with gays, then form PRIVATE BUSINESSES that cater to members only, in this case, other Christians. That's allowed even today under federal law. Churches and private clubs are considered private entities, not public. You have to join a church or private club to become a member. Private entities are allowed to discriminate, at the Federal level, and many of them they do. The fight right now for those bigoted Christians is at the state and city level. So if a Christian business owner wants to discriminate against gays when he/she does business, make laws that continue to allow discrimination in private businesses. But those businesses would only cater to any members that joined, not the general public at large. It's not a very good way to make money at your chosen profession, unless you get a lot of Christians or like-mined people to join your business club. Public shaming would not be good for bidness either.

Be that as it may, gender identity is not a protected right, thus not afforded a section in the Federal Civil Rights Act.....yet. Science has yet to prove conclusively that gender identity and homosexuality are a immutable traits, although despite what you say ST, it IS being found in animals in nature. You just need to get rid of your Bible blinders. Segueing from that, religious affiliation IS a protected right in the U.S., but it's NOT an immutable trait, it's a CHOICE. So your logic that homosexuality and gender identity is a choice, and as such, should not be afforded a protected right, is a specious argument. What would happen if say, an Atheist movement came along in the U.S. in reaction to all those religious laws that people have been trying to pass these last few years, then they get voted into power and decide that religion should no longer be considered a special right? Then they move to strike religious protection from the Constitution and put in laws to allow businesses to discriminate against those who belong to a religion because religions are are the anathema to Atheist beliefs? Nothing's impossible ST.

What if there is a God who has an enemy?

What does that question have to do with anything here? We're discussing legal statutes, not religious philosophizing.

If there is a God, does He have no right to set legal precedent?

But just what makes your concept of God any more or less valid than another person's? There are plenty of Christians out there who are just fine with same-sex marriage, not to mention people of other faiths. As we've already established, there's no sort of conceivable scientific experiment one could design to prove or disprove God, so what you're left with are individuals' varying beliefs. Like TC said, we have a secular government, not a theocracy, and our laws should not be rooted in individual religious beliefs.

Well, then we also have that inward witness, which some seem to lack. For instance, about a week ago, I told the Lord I wanted a digital police scanner. He told me to watch Craigslist. I had been for a few years now, so I kinda went situation normal. Well, yesterday I was on the couch, and He told me "go check craigslist", sure enough, there was my $500 dollar scanner for $250.00 just posted. He also tells me that the whole world is perverted, so they are just another indication.

flip wrote:If there is a God, does He have no right to set legal precedent?

Well, assuming he is omnipotent like they taught us he doesn't need no stinking rights!

But it would be really nice if he would at least start to do some more of the burning bush and parting of the waters stuff, maybe release a new edition of the stone tablets....etc.
Some background checks on the executive branch of his organization couldn't hurt. I don't think I've met one of them I trust.

The way he is doing it right now is truly problematic. Mysterious ways doesn't always mean the best way...at least from down here in the thick of it.

No, the problem is logical fallacy. He has given us dominion and free will, we just don't want to comply.

In fact Will, most Christians only know what they have been taught, more like a family tradition than the true Gospel. If they had never strayed out of the word, they would have found the leaven.

See, all through Jesus' life on this Earth, He says He and the Father are one, but also that the Father is greater. Yet, on the cross He cries out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!." Then He gives up the ghost. When he had rose from the dead, He tells His disciples to not touch Him, for He had not yet been glorified. He now comes to us as the separated Spirit. At His baptism, he fulfilled the prophecy of Joel and won the Spirit of God on all flesh. Through the word, blood of Christ and God's Spirit, God calls to the world to accept His testimony about the Son. When they do, He sends the separated Spirit of His Son into our hearts and we receive adoption as children.

That's all holy means, separate. So now everybody has this idea that God is either 3 individual persons as one, go figure that one, or worse, He's schizophrenic and has 3 different personalities. The fact is, 1 John 5:7 in the KJV has an addition that is not supposed to be there, so people have taken it as truth. There is only Father and Son.

It's actually the worst place in the whole book, because that is talking about God's testimony about His Son. He used the water(word), the blood of His Son, and His Spirit on all flesh as a testimony about His Son. I would not want to be them but to their credit, at least they left the additions only to one book, therefore giving only one witness. That is very important, because back then anything with only one witness had to be dismissed. If there were 2, it had to be accepted. I think it was by order of a king.

tunnelcat wrote:

You mean by businesses and the NFL? I thought the free market was your Holy Grail of ideologies woody? Obviously, Brewer kowtowed to the free market and not the theocrats. How does the Republican Party deal with those opposing forces?

How does the Dem. Party handle a Dem. politician saying we need illegal aliens 'cause business's need them to work and be competitive?

flip wrote:If there is a God, does He have no right to set legal precedent?

maybe in a theocracy, but thank goodness, we don't live in one.


Also, the reply to Thorne about Leviticus is VERY well put. Thorne, and many others, apply very selective use of the ancient Biblical law.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

You mean by businesses and the NFL? I thought the free market was your Holy Grail of ideologies woody? Obviously, Brewer kowtowed to the free market and not the theocrats. How does the Republican Party deal with those opposing forces?

How does the Dem. Party handle a Dem. politician saying we need illegal aliens 'cause business's need them to work and be competitive? [/quote]

aside from the quote fail, the part with the winking smiley makes no sense.

That agree with wholeheartedly Slick, but I was talking about a personal, moral, inward law. No way I would want a governing theocracy. The whole world of Christendom has broken the Cardinal rule. It says we are to have only one teacher and to never go outside of the word. If they don't even care enough to search it out for themselves who in their right mind thinks they could govern accordingly? Surely not me and history as my advocate. Yet, we came from solid ground to where we are now by removing the moral compass. How can a man live free if he doesn't have the utmost integrity? How do you instill high morality in people without first setting a standard? I think Paul's Gospel does just that and if everyone really believed it, they would love people and their enemies and try to build them up. Not hide behind them saying "at least I'm not that bad!"

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

You mean by businesses and the NFL? I thought the free market was your Holy Grail of ideologies woody? Obviously, Brewer kowtowed to the free market and not the theocrats. How does the Republican Party deal with those opposing forces?

How does the Dem. Party handle a Dem. politician saying we need illegal aliens 'cause business's need them to work and be competitive?

aside from the quote fail, the part with the winking smiley makes no sense.[/quote]

Perhaps your ability to comprehend needs more coffee? And fixed.

my point, Woody, beyond a quick jibe at the early-morning quote issue was this: Who, in the Democratic party, or elsewhere, ever suggested that we need more illegal immigrants? I've heard many suggest that we should make FEWER people illegal, and more people legal residents of the US, but never heard your asserted claim of 'we need more illegals' for economic or any reason.

flip wrote:If there is a God, does He have no right to set legal precedent?

Why should he bother? He's GOD, not a civil rights lawyer. He can do anything to us he pleases. He could wipe us all out if he pleases. He could leave us to our own devices if he pleases. He could sit back and watch us for entertainment's sake if he pleases. But down here on earth, it's what humans do to with their own lives and how they treat one another living those lives, that makes us or breaks us as human beings. We need to be civil and fair to one another, we don't necessarily have to accept one another. If God is pleased or displeased with what we do, he's not saying anything about it one way or another in the modern age. In the end, if there is a God, he will sort us all out and determine our ultimate destiny.

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Leviticus 20 wrote:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

See it always gets me when people whip out this verse as a justification for their feelings towards homosexuality, because they're usually utterly ignoring the context in which it should be placed. The statues in Leviticus were a legal code for the Israelites of 3500 years ago, a group which knew essentially nothing about human biology or psychology. How anyone can sit there with a straight face and say that this statement should apply as-written to the 21st century, with all we've learned about human behavior and development...it's beyond absurd. Also note that other statements in Leviticus forbid the consumption of shellfish and the wearing of garments made of more than one material: are we to treat those as equally-binding today? Come on and use some critical thinking.

Before I decide to take you thoroughly to task for this bologna, TG, I'm going to point out that you have not made an argument here, but a series of protests implying falseness. Do you have anything legitimate to show that it is wrong to understand this verse as conveying God's view on homosexuality for mankind?

You really need to rethink this, if it even matters to you (it ought to). A little humility goes a long way. I can think of 2 reasons, right off the top of my head, that you're wrong, but since you didn't actually make an argument...

I would ask that you keep your arguments concise, so that I don't have to waste time separating your mistakes into distinct subjects in order to deal with them.

Agree completely TC. You are right, He could wipe us out, but He didn't. He did come to empower us though and He is completely involved in the lives of those who will listen. I often wondered why God didn't just wipe us out and start over. See, people have a misperception of God, but the God I believe in repented that He ever made man. I wondered about that for a long time. It didn't fit with what everyone else was saying. He made man, gave them much power and dominion then an enemy started singing off key, doing the opposite. I think God loves us so much that He just couldn't bring Himself to do it. That's why I have such a holy, reverential fear now. I found out who the Son is. See, at least 2 times I can find Jesus saying that He had much to say in judgment of us, but He would only say what the Father told Him. Then, in the garden, He begged God to find a different way but He would still only do the Father's will. He suffered tremendously. He gave up His body, so that God could send His holy spirit to any who believed God's testimony about His Son. See how much love the Father has for us? See how much love the Son has for the Father and those who love the Father? There are legalities involved. Man will rule all creation just as he was ordained and when the Son comes back, it will not be precious little baby Jesus. He is coming back with a vengeance.