Gay candidate Pete Buttigieg tells Pence:

Personally I don't care about him being gay. It certainly will not help him, just DNC/CIA testing the executive potential for homosexual individuals. Probably not on most Americans checklist as something that needs to happen (well unless you are diehard DNC cultist). I do however smell CIA dust all over him. His parents (like Obama) are communist. He was fast tracked to Harvard, Rhodes scholar, and he has held associations with many Global CIA fronts.

"Pete worked for McKinsey & Company, a top consulting firm, where he was responsible for advising senior business and government leaders on major decisions related to economic development, energy policy, strategic business initiatives, and logistics. His work took him around the country and the world, including to Iraq and Afghanistan, and he serves as an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve."

archive.fo...

Look into McKinsey & Company and your eyes might be opened.

originally posted by: matafuchs
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.

In general I agree, however its all the in between cases that cause the problems.

What if it's a non life threatening condition that a doctor refuses to treat because of your sexuality. Not a big deal if you live In a big city, as you say plenty of alternatives, but what if you live in a small rural town with only one doctor?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Fire the doctor.

medschool.ucla.edu...

Last time I checked being a baker simply means don't cook something that might make people ill...

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: ScepticScot

Fire the doctor.

medschool.ucla.edu...

Last time I checked being a baker simply means don't cook something that might make people ill...

Well the doctor is just an example, it's more just that there are too many variables to draw clear lines of sometimes it ok to refuse service and sometimes it's not.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Doctors have a legal obligation to treat patients, ALL patients who present themselves for treatment. In some cases, doctors can object to a certain procedure, but not to the patient.

Doctors can already lose their license for anything that looks like discrimination, including the fact that the patient is unable to pay. So there are already adequate protections in that regard.

originally posted by: Theophorus
If you have a problem with who I am , your quarrel is with my creator. source : (various news outlets...the usual lib media)

First and foremost I don't have a problem with Peter Buttigieg being gay. Thus being said, I do have a problem with any gay person using the bible as a political tool to advance his/her agenda, thus being president. Again, I could care less what your sexual orientation is (keep it in the bedroom) .

However,

The Bible strictly condemns homosexuality. Marriage is between Man and Woman.

side note
Mike Pence is only adhering to what the bibles teaches.

My questions .. Is Pete Buttigieg trying to blur traditional christian belief to get voters on his side? who is Pete Buttigiegs creator? I'm pretty sure that every major religion condemns homosexuality. Its strange that he would want to distant himself from millions of Christians being that he seems very intelligent .

Any thoughts?

Do you also have a problem with straight people using the bible as a tool to advance his/her agenda like Pence does on a regular basis?

originally posted by: Theophorus
If you have a problem with who I am , your quarrel is with my creator. source : (various news outlets...the usual lib media)

First and foremost I don't have a problem with Peter Buttigieg being gay. Thus being said, I do have a problem with any gay person using the bible as a political tool to advance his/her agenda, thus being president. Again, I could care less what your sexual orientation is (keep it in the bedroom) .

However,

The Bible strictly condemns homosexuality. Marriage is between Man and Woman.

side note
Mike Pence is only adhering to what the bibles teaches.

My questions .. Is Pete Buttigieg trying to blur traditional christian belief to get voters on his side? who is Pete Buttigiegs creator? I'm pretty sure that every major religion condemns homosexuality. Its strange that he would want to distant himself from millions of Christians being that he seems very intelligent .

Any thoughts?

Dbl post.

originally posted by: Theophorus
If you have a problem with who I am , your quarrel is with my creator. source : (various news outlets...the usual lib media)

First and foremost I don't have a problem with Peter Buttigieg being gay. Thus being said, I do have a problem with any gay person using the bible as a political tool to advance his/her agenda, thus being president. Again, I could care less what your sexual orientation is (keep it in the bedroom) .

However,

The Bible strictly condemns homosexuality. Marriage is between Man and Woman.

side note
Mike Pence is only adhering to what the bibles teaches.

My questions .. Is Pete Buttigieg trying to blur traditional christian belief to get voters on his side? who is Pete Buttigiegs creator? I'm pretty sure that every major religion condemns homosexuality. Its strange that he would want to distant himself from millions of Christians being that he seems very intelligent .

Any thoughts?

Triple post. Website froze on me.

a reply to: Theophorus

my thoughts - pence and others - cherry pick thier biblical morality

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: gortex

I don't have a problem with straight men using the Bible as a tool. That's normal.

Then you don't have a problem with a gay man using it too , or is that not normal ?

If you don't like then that's your opinion and you can vote against anyone using it. Then we can forget about it and all move on. Pretty cool huh?

Personally I'd rather people kept the Bible out of politics , religion and state should be kept separate.

Gay people represent around 2% of the country and is forbidden according to the Bible. He can use it if he wants to, but I don't have to accept it.

Can you cite in the new testament where it is forbidden?

originally posted by: Graysen
a reply to: ScepticScot

Doctors have a legal obligation to treat patients, ALL patients who present themselves for treatment. In some cases, doctors can object to a certain procedure, but not to the patient.

Doctors can already lose their license for anything that looks like discrimination, including the fact that the patient is unable to pay. So there are already adequate protections in that regard.

As per post above. Doctor was just an example.

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

Can you cite in the new testament where it is forbidden?

Not forbidden, with a list of punishments. But you can definitely tell its not the path of people who are trying to honor the creator. Here's Paul writing in his letter to the Roman church:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Paul calls it an error. one that comes with a penalty (which sounds like negative consequences) rather than a punishment.

a reply to: Graysen

In Strong's, the word is pathos and in the NT testament it means vile passions. So yes, those would come with a penalty.

The question would be whether or not you ascribe to Paul. These days there are whole sects that prefer to discard him because he's far more frank and direct than Christ ever was.

a reply to: ketsuko

True enough. He isn't the messiah, merely a limited human commentator. One who has been the conscience of the church for 20 centuries...

It's enough for me to know that Christ taught against sex out of wedlock and then taught us that marriage is between a man and woman. It's pretty hard to envision him approving of the act of homosexuality in any context between those two things.

Not that I discount Paul, but it's common for people to do so in discussions like these.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: matafuchs
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.

In general I agree, however its all the in between cases that cause the problems.

What if it's a non life threatening condition that a doctor refuses to treat because of your sexuality. Not a big deal if you live In a big city, as you say plenty of alternatives, but what if you live in a small rural town with only one doctor?

Meh. There are a bunch of loopholes anyway. Doctors can refuse to treat you if you have no insurance and no way to pay as long as it isn't deemed to be life threatening. IOW, they can slap a bandage on an 80 year old man's sprained ankle and send him home without so much as a cane to help him walk even though he could technically lose his balance, fall and break his neck trying to walk on a sprained ankle with alternative way to support himself.

So, a sprained ankle could be life threatening in a roundabout way but they get to treat it like it's no big deal (especially if you have no money) and send you packing.

Anyway, I have a slightly different take on the whole thing. Personally, I don't think a bakery should be forced to sell a cake to a gay couple (or anyone else). Costco doesn't have to let you walk in and shop. You have to be a member or accompanied by a member. A business technically should be able to tell you to hit the road because they don't like your face. It's that simple.

HOWEVER, IMO, if there is someone who wants to be a doctor but they have ethical problems with stuff doctors are expected to do, they should really do something else and not bog the system down with their obstinate BS. IOW, if they don't want to perform abortions, they don't want to be doctors. That's the way I see it.

And for that matter, if a person who bakes cakes for a living does not want to bake a cake for someone because they don't like what that person does in bed, they don't want to bake cakes for a living. They want to tell other people what to do more than they want to bake cakes.

And then, of course, it goes back to the fact that if it's not a big deal, don't make it a big deal. If you can move on and not make a stink about it, just do it. I frankly do not think it is very likely that someone who wants an abortion would not be able to find a doctor to accommodate them. Maybe it happens from time to time. I think it's more likely that people just get mad because they think if they have the money to pay a business should do what they want them to do. Doesn't necessarily work that way.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Theophorus

Can you quote the strict condemnation of homosexuality in the bible please?

And when you are done, can you tell me you'd take such a literal interpretation of Leviticus beyond those 2 passages? If so, all of us should die for wearing mixed fabric.

LOL...using the bible as a basis for argument is just silly.

I think it goes beyond the bible and just about nature.
Sexual organs were specifically designed.
There is only one way to reproduce.

This mans last name as crazy as it is, is gone. He will never have a son and. Naturally carry on the family name.

Should be a very straight forward topic. not much room to mess sex up.... there is iterally only one way to reproduce

a reply to: Bloodworth

What about people that are sterile? Do you lump them together with homosexuals and other non-breeders.

By the way one of the key genes that contributes to homosexuality in males increases fertility in women. So just because you perceive of something as unnatural doesn't mean it's not actually contributing to the propagation of the species.

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.

Maybe check again, only this time take the chip off your shoulder.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Theophorus

No, actually, the Bible doesn't strictly condemn homosexuality. In fact, many religious scholars have made a case to the contrary.

For historical context, you may want to look up Adelphopoiesis. Just for starters. If you want to know the whole truth.

But more important, our nation was founded by those Christians fleeing the persecution of other Christians, and our natural and Constitutional rights to religious freedom precludes anyone making such decisions for anyone else.

You can believe what you will. I can believe what I will. There is no room within the law for our beliefs to be mandated or forced upon anyone else.

Did you read a little but lower in the wiki entry about the criticisms... usually that such research is faulty and biased? According to Robin Young (who actually underwent the ceremony with a female friend) the ceremony is an adoption or statement of enduring friendship.