Gay candidate Pete Buttigieg tells Pence:

a reply to: ScepticScot

Did I say just giving it a different name? No. I said giving it a different name for government benefits to all. So that includes hetero marriages too.

That would then leave it up to individuals/couples/religious groups to decide who they wanted to define it within themselves.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude
no, I don't. There is a good Chance Barry liked a little pickle on the side, and that part of him doesn't bother me a bit. I have a gay child, and love her no differently than the others. If I were looking for a replacement for a position that capitalized on a person't gayness, then how many petters puffed might be a determining factor, But for president of the US, it's just not. I need to know you can make the tough decisions and have had to do that in the past. Anyone can do the easy #.

You seem to want to paint me as a homophobe as I'm sure you think most Trump supporters are, but I'm just not. I don't hate black people because they are black, and I don't hate gay folks for being gay. I also don't hate white PPL for being white. Call me old school, but I think Dr. King had a pret
ty good message and it has resonated with me for a long time. Impress me because you are you, not because you need more attention.

By good chance you mean evidence free conspiracy? But that beside the point

The point is that he is as far as we can tell extremely intelligent and has military and political experience.

With the possible exception of his age he seems extremely suited as a candidate, so trying to belittle him by saying he is using his ' Gayness' to get an edge is poor form.

Every candidate in the Democrat field is checking a diversity box.

Mayor Pete is gay. Beto made up a fake name to seem more Hispanic. Kamala is playing the black female card. Warren is called Fauxcahontas for legitimate reasons. You know which card *she* played on top of the woman card. Yang is an Asian man. Gabbard is the first American Samoan and first Hindu in congress. Julian Castro is a real Hispanic. Gillibrand feminist woman. Cory Booker is running the black man and ancient Roman cards. Klobuchar is running the woman and bossy girl thing. Bernie is taking the old white Marxist approach. Messam is another son of Jamaicans. Hickenlooper, Inslee, Ryan, and Gravel seem to be running on with Biden on the old white man ticket. And Swalwell through himself in the angry white man who wants to take off and nuke gun owners from orbit.

Nice exercise in giving people labels.

Think you might be stretching with the old white man as a diversity label however since that would be 90% of US presidents.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Did I say just giving it a different name? No. I said giving it a different name for government benefits to all. So that includes hetero marriages too.

That would then leave it up to individuals/couples/religious groups to decide who they wanted to define it within themselves.

Why don't religious groups give it a different name then? Since government marriage can apply to everyone let all the different religious groups name their ceremony whatever they want.

a reply to: ketsuko

You said it with a lot less pixels than I did. Way to go.

I didn't vote for trump; but then I was living in a sea of red so my vote wasn't going to count anyway.

He's the "Larson E. Pettifogger" character from the wizard of Id cartoon. But he's not actively interested in running over my religious and guns rights to the extent that the pinkos are.

He is OK with gay marriage. So am I. He's gonna leave them alone, and me too, probably.

Good enough.

Christian's didn't create marriage, wish they'd stop pretending they have any claim over it, or any ability to exclusively defining it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Did I say just giving it a different name? No. I said giving it a different name for government benefits to all. So that includes hetero marriages too.

That would then leave it up to individuals/couples/religious groups to decide who they wanted to define it within themselves.

Why don't religious groups give it a different name then? Since government marriage can apply to everyone let all the different religious groups name their ceremony whatever they want.

Why? They've been around longer than the US government and they have the 1st which is older than the 14th.

But here's the deal ... if the government simply authorized a benefits license that married couples could get or not as they chose to have the government benefits of a union, then people could be married or not in the eyes of a religion or licensed by the law, either, neither, or both.

Just because this or that religious sect doesn't recognize what Mayor Pete and his partner has as a marriage in their eyes would not prevent them from being married in the eyes of some other group, and certainly wouldn't prevent them from receiving the government license and deciding that's all they need to be married too.

All it does do is remove the legal basis so many are using to sue others for lawfare.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Christian's didn't create marriage, wish they'd stop pretending they have any claim over it, or any ability to exclusively defining it.

Christians aren't the only ones claiming an exclusive basis for the definition of marriage.

Or have I missed the slew of lawsuits where the Christians go around forcing everyone to do what they want over marriage?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

It's so funny watching the Right try to act like denying homosexuals basic rights was not a part of their official party platform until just a few years ago.

It's so funny watching the Left try to act like denying African Americans basic rights was not a part of their official party platform until just a few years ago.

Pence is merely adhering to the bible??? You mean the old testament? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. If Pence is just following the bible, why isn't he out there stoning disobedient children as god commands? Why isn't he against shellfish eaters??? Why isn't he pro slavery and against the rich? You can't just cherry pick that one passage in Leviticus and ignore the rest. This is why religious fundamentalists are fundamentally dumb.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The last time I checked, the Bible was a ridiculously preposterous musty old book full of made up BS that was written by a bunch people who were barely a step up from cavemen trying to explain things they didn't understand. Those morons would have probably said it's a sin to use a computer too if they had any idea that computers would ever exist.

If that's your opinion then don't read it. Problem solved.

The problem is that not reading it won't stop people who believe in it from trying to force me to abide by laws they make that are based on their superstitious nonsense. At that point, I kinda don't have a choice but to say something.

Who forces you to abide by the rules of the Bible? Abortion and gay marriage existed before they were issues.

Why did they become issues? Who cares if people have abortions? Hell, we need to be paying stupid people to have abortions. There should be an incentive to do it rather than some kind of stigma?

Why is there an agenda to discourage and ban abortion on a planet with 7 billion people (many of them already living in abject misery because there was never any real need for them to exist in the first place)? Because of stupid religious people who believe stupid stuff and try to pass stupid laws that don't make any sense in a world that has moved beyond delusional old men who thought burning bushes were speaking to them and fearing they would be turned into pillars of salt if they didn't run away from buttsex.

There are still people who are dumb enough to resist sex education and try to tell people that birth control is wrong and it just goes on and on. I'm tired of them.

You might have noticed I'm not an idiot. I do know what religious people are up to. I hear their BS. I know they're not benign. I know they're hiding behind free speech while they do not actually believe in free speech or freedom at all.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I just call it as I see it. I don't want to be oppressed by anyone.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Did I say just giving it a different name? No. I said giving it a different name for government benefits to all. So that includes hetero marriages too.

That would then leave it up to individuals/couples/religious groups to decide who they wanted to define it within themselves.

Why don't religious groups give it a different name then? Since government marriage can apply to everyone let all the different religious groups name their ceremony whatever they want.

Why? They've been around longer than the US government and they have the 1st which is older than the 14th.

But here's the deal ... if the government simply authorized a benefits license that married couples could get or not as they chose to have the government benefits of a union, then people could be married or not in the eyes of a religion or licensed by the law, either, neither, or both.

Just because this or that religious sect doesn't recognize what Mayor Pete and his partner has as a marriage in their eyes would not prevent them from being married in the eyes of some other group, and certainly wouldn't prevent them from receiving the government license and deciding that's all they need to be married too.

All it does do is remove the legal basis so many are using to sue others for lawfare.

Isn't that what happens now.

Are any religious groups forced to recognise marriage?

originally posted by: Rob808
It pretty clearly states man shall not lay with another man.

Yes, the old testament does say that... specifically, not to lay with another man as one lays with a woman. And it was said in the very specific context of pagan worship (as found in Egypt), including temple prostitutes, and other forms of worship not in keeping with the Hebrews newfound freedom.

Much the same way Sodom was not condemned for homosexuality, but for their rape and abuse of others -- including their demand to rape the angels visiting Lot.

If you're looking to discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality, that's a clear statement it's not something to act on. People have an agenda who say it's unclear or the evidence states contrary things regarding homosexuality. It's quite clear.

No, it is not "quite clear." At no time is the word "homosexual" or its equivalent ever found in the Bible. Ever. The closest we can find to a euphemism is "eunuch." And the word "eunuch" had three legal applications in the 1st c., which could include homosexuals (but not necessarily).

If it was meant to be clear, it would have been clear. For example, Leviticus' condemnation of shellfish is actually quite clear!

Nor does Jesus ever condemn homosexuality in any way. The most Jesus says about it is that it is that most of us cannot fully understand God's will regarding marriage and homosexuals.

Is that correct is a totally different and valid question.

Not my view, I say get it on people however you need to.

I would say that even if someone believes that is what the Bible tells them, why are they so adamant about keeping the one, but not others. Such as eating shellfish, or the meat of animals with cloven hooves... or how about selling daughters into slavery?

I will also add that Jesus gave us one commandment: To love one another as He loves us. If Jesus wasn't fretting over it, I'm not either.

Actually Jesus DID speak against the homosexual court of King Herod Antipas.

Modern Bible scholars have white washed the passages so they don't have to talk about when Jesus was pissed off. It has always been "toned down" in English translations, because King James had gay lovers while he was king of England. He told his Bible commission to give a more "pleasant" rendering than the original greek:

24 When John's messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are dressed in splendid clothing and live in luxury are in kings' courts. -Luke 7:24-25

The word Jesus uses for "soft" is "malakha," which is actually the word for plush. The plural noun, malakhoi, is used in classical literature to mean "the plush ones," i.e. effeminate homosexuals. Jesus specifically uses this word to talk about the king in his palace. Herod was famous for cross-dressing, and having 'marriages' to the men of his court. Heroditus in his "Antiquities of the Jews" talks about how hated Herod was by his Jewish subjects for cross-dressing, which was seen as Greco-roman depravity.

31At that very hour, some Pharisees came to Jesus and told Him, “Leave this place and get away, because Herod wants to kill You.” 32But Jesus replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘Look, I will keep driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach My goal.’ -Luke 13:31

The word that Jesus uses for "fox" is "allopeka" in the oldest manuscripts (papyri and the Pes.hitta). It is in the feminine form-- "vixen." The female fox was believed to be so slutty when it was in heat that it would hunt the male fox, enabling the fox hunters to find and kill the male for his red coat. The female fox was the ancient prototype for lascivious sexuality.

Jesus, in the oldest manuscripts, calls Herod a female fox, literally "that foxy bitch."

In the critical text used by scholars for bible study, the word Jesus uses for fox has been altered to the neuter gender, to disguise the slap at Herod, who was famous for cross-dressing and for hosting homosexual orgies in his court.

So yeah, you can say that Jesus never addresses homosexuality, if you are careful to ignore his actual words.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Since government does, now groups are suing to force religious groups that do marriage related things to recognize gay marriage.

We were told this wouldn't happen, but of course, now they sue using the 14th and claiming discrimination. "You serve what you call a marriage, but all marriages are equal under the law ..." They started with private businesses and are working their way through religious schools, adoptions agencies, churches that rent to people, etc.

By the way, I keep reading this guy's name as Pete Buttplug. I don't know why.

a reply to: Graysen

A man dressed in soft clothing?

Do you think that women of Jesus' status wore "soft" clothing in those days? LOL

The rich could afford silk and fine linins. They wore fine robes and had soft hands too. Doesn't mean they were gay, even though bisexuality and open homosexuality was common in those days too, especially among Roman soldiers, who weren't wearing "soft" clothing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Since government does, now groups are suing to force religious groups that do marriage related things to recognize gay marriage.

We were told this wouldn't happen, but of course, now they sue using the 14th and claiming discrimination. "You serve what you call a marriage, but all marriages are equal under the law ..." They started with private businesses and are working their way through religious schools, adoptions agencies, churches that rent to people, etc.

I was under the impression that it had already been ruled that clergy could not be compelled to perform same sex marriages.

A business that is owned by people with a religious view, can't however claim an exception to providing services based on religious grounds

a reply to: ScepticScot

youre exactly right

I say get the gov out of marriage ALL TOGETHER, in all aspects.

Let the churches decide what they want to do, if they wont do it , go to a dif church.

Let's make it simple and take religion out of it. This is where he screwed up.

1. Let anyone get married as long as they pay for it and it is legal.
2. No separate rights for any group.
3. Let all of those who are non-hetero pay for weddings.
4. Let all of those who are non-hetero pay for child support as needed.
5. Let all of those who are non-hetero pay for divorces.

The problem is that most 'groups' want different rights or preferential treatment. It used to be 'I'm gay". Then it was "LGBT". Then it was "LGBTE%#4OPI812". Now it is " I identify as a Toaster"...it is nonsense.

Law is one thing. Religion is another. We separated them for a reason. Protection of your religion under law is a right just as protection from discrimination. Until the special interest groups are removed from the equation this will be used as a political tool.

a reply to: ScepticScot

This is a very good read regarding US law as compared to State Law.

Link

If a doctor did not perform a life threatening treatment because someone was gay I have issue. The man could die.
If a gay couple goes to a bakery and they say no, move on and find someone who supports you. There are 100's of other bakeries as was noted in this case.

To me not baking a cake is not ruining the lives of anyone. It is petty if nothing else.

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that future cases would be necessary to settle the broader debate between religious rights and discrimination.