Let me get this straight....

How is it presumptions when it is in the Bible?


The only debate here is whether it's right for the government to treat them differently. That point can be debated amongst Christians but you'll be hard pressed for any to condone being homosexual.

 

Oh honey, don't you know we are not supposed to eat shellfish either? <- A common retort for the Bible argument....

 

Is it ok to eat crustaceans then?



:jester:

 

I personally feel that the food instructions given were to prevent illness due to improper preparation, storage, and sanitation. But, I don't know God's logic for sure. You know, lean not unto your own understanding and all. Was homosexuality frowned upon because the earth needed to be populated, or to prevent disease?

This is timely, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...-of-noahs-ark-planned-for-outside-cincinnati/ - as a male and female of each species was asked of Noah to be brought aboard the ark.

 

I agree. Lesbians kissing at the table in Cracker Barrel is not OK with me. Happened yesterday!

 

What if it's fried?

 

In the south, we would eat a **** if you deep-fried it.

 

Wow, you cannot use the t word for poop.

 

Biblically regarding that which a Christian eats, it was Jesus that said in Matthew 15:10 that what goes into our mouths do not make us unclean, but what comes out that makes us unclean. Also, the Apostle Paul in Romans 14:14 stating, "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." Yet, homosexuality is still condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Aside from a person's religious beliefs, however, I don't see any reason to exclude someone from serving in the military but I think the DODT is a better choice than making anyone's sexual preference an issue. If there are stringent anti-hazing rules already in place, than there should be no reason to make sexuality an issue in military service. Sexual preference has no bearing on service, so why make it an issue?

 

That kind of sums it up for me Jester. WHY do we have to have prefixes in front of the title "American"? We all have the same rights under the Constitution, but somewhere along the line somebody made a call and this and other issues have became political fodder and a quest to make others accept a lifestyle, a religion, etc ensued. So much time is spent creating new laws, when the ones we already had covered it. You can't discriminate. Well, that can cover everybody - right? No, lets spend time creating non-discrimination laws for *each* group of people in the US.

Why can't we just "you do what you do, and I'll do what I do" as long as we are not hurting anybody or infringing on another's rights? Why does something have to be advertised? Why, if you are happy and comfortable with yourself, do you need someone else's approval? That's just immature, I don't give a rat's *** what others think of me - the older I get the less I care.

And whomever said that when folks think of homosexuality, they shouldn't think of the actual act - well, it's kind of hard when this is called Art and given floor space at the Smithsonian. And where is the Celebrate Heterosexual Art display? Discrimination!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/smithsonian-lgbt-exhibit/

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2101688

And really, does America's Sexuality need to be on display at the Smithsonian? With the likes of the original flag sewn by Betsy Ross and the Fonze's leather jacket? See? Advertise!!! Why can't it be a private display that travels the country like Bodies or The Titanic display and not payed for with taxpayer dollars? Because, if we put it in a federally funded institution we can normalize it.

 

Dang, I missed it! Were they bull or lipstick?

 

I was always around when my parents had folks over. We were stationed all over the world and, yes, they did discuss items such as someone being a homosexual if someone brought it up. I think that counts for me understanding what service people think and see. Even way back in the old days.

Sherry

 

My dad's retired Army and he doesn't care. He's a WWII and Vietnam Vet also. I think more don't care. It should be that no one cares what sexual, religious, etc. orientation a person is. Less blackmail if we just didn't care as well.

Sherry

 

:iagree:

 

Think you meant to say that they claim to be Christians. Based on actions, not so much.

FWIW, the Old Testament book of Leviticus begins the dietary laws.
In order to be considered clean, a fish has to have scales and fins. Crustaceans do not have scales..so no shrimp, lobster, crawdads, oysters, clams...etc. Catfish has fins, but no scales...so no catfish. No octopus, squid, blue crabs, etc.

Yet, if I am hearing it correctly, justification for whatever reason is made for those laws being appropriate "in the old days because of preparation, food safety, storage, etc. Isn't this just another manifestation of following the laws that are easy and likable, rather than following them all?

If your response to objection to homosexuality is based on your religious beliefs, it would help if you lived your life completely in obedience to all of those..charity, tithing, humility, following the 10 Commandments, etc. Apparently, that many claim the title, but do not follow the teachings is where the religious viewpoint is dismissed.

Yet, as a combat veteran and with the viewpoint that religious belief should not be a factor for consideration of military service, I object to the denial of civil rights based on that POV.

Homosocial and homosexual people are hear to stay.

As for the Cracker Barrel thing, you could have looked away. Imagine how gay people might feel when they see other public displays of affection, and know that, as second class citizens, their own displays are condemned.

Side note: if this were even a remote occurrence, this wouldn't be newsworthy. Source: CNN
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/01/televangelist-says-he-cheated-on-wife-2/?hpt=T2

 

So, now you speak for all Christians? What a joke!!

Sherry

 

I need my eyes checked but it appears it says overwhelming majority up there somewhere. If not how many Christians do you know that believe homosexuality is ok?

 

You all are falling for the obama publicity stunt. This isn't about gays in the military or serving openly. This is just another promise that obama made during the campaign that he knew he couldn't keep. Same thing with Arizona. He needed the mexican vote so he said he'd give them a free ride. He needed the gay vote so he said he'd end DADT. He never had any intentions of fulfilling either of these promises because he couldn't. He doesn't have the power to do either one. The only difference is that a majority of Americans got their brains short circuited by a pretty smile.

If you want to end DADT then you are either squarely against gays serving in the military or you are once again walking over the edge with the rest of the lemmings. You want to be against it? Then read the damn thing and stop looking like you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

obama got upstaged once by the governor of Arizona, and he wasn't about to let a Curcuit Court Judge do the same. He said he wanted to end DADT, but when that judge struck it down he crapped his pants and got an injunction. Why? If he was truly against it then he wouldn't care who got the credit.

And what happens if the government does repeal DADT? The military can ask about your sexual preference. Hello??? Not all gays are out of the closet, so what happens to the gay Captain who wants to keep his private life private? Oh no, no, we can't have that now can we? No, we are going to take back the ability to keep your sexual preference private just so your president can make a speech and flash a smile in the midst of a disastrous presidency.

You all seem to have great insight into what military people think and don't think. Some have served, some haven't. To those of you that did, I ask this:

If DADT is lifted, do you really think you'll see two male Marines swapping spit at the O club? Will two Airmen dance together at the NCO club? Will two male soldiers hold hands at the movie? C'mon, get real. "Lifting the ban" (as the libs mistakenly call it because there is NO BAN) won't mean diddly to those that serve. It's a chance for obama to mug it up for the cameras and hoodwink the weaker minded Americans once again.

 

Well said.

 

Libs love them some sexuality, race and gender topics.