# Gays



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

With a title like that, who can resist?

Looking at the thread in Around the Campfire about gays

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=869282

It occurs to me that even on this most Conservative bastion of Conservatism that there's a distinct movement towards openness and acceptance of gays.  Who would have imagined that people would be admitting to having gay friends or family members and even stating that they are OK with it?  I'm certain that some people will see this as the prophesied destruction of Humanity and the beginning of the end times.  Can anyone share Biblical passages that refer to this?  Off the top of my head I recall something about "Given to their desires......"

So, I'd like to discuss this as a Spiritual/Humanitarian topic (if you think they are not the same, please elaborate).

Is it a good thing?  Why?  Is it a bad thing? Why?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

I grew up in a multicultural home.  Filipinos don't really demonize gays.  Culturally, they are quite accepted.  They play roles in movies, usually as some kind of comedic element.  They aren't ostracized or shamed. It's quite common to mock a gay friend or use language with them in a joking way that would be called hate speech in the West.  (My wife still can't get used to that).  But there was never any talk about them being nasty, dirty, disgusting or sinful in my household.

I knew of one kid in grade school that was clearly gay.  Boy did he get it from the other kids.  Maybe because of my upbringing, I had no problem talking to him or being paired with him for activities and such.  I remember that by Jr. High I decided to choose the side of the cool kids and ostracize him.  I have forgiven myself for that but it still makes me feel sucky.  He was funny in a swishy way and had a strength of character forged by cruelty upon him that I could have learned from.  I look at my decision to follow the crowd (which included playing football and making fun of Troy) in order to get invited to the cool parties and sit at the cool lunch table as a regrettable sign of personal weakness.

So here we are now.  It's cool to have a gay (or black or Muslim or Atheist) friend.  I don't know what it's like out in the country but here in the city if a kid makes fun of a gay they will get an earful.  Progress?  Sign of the Apocalypse?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

Throughout human history, folks that were born with some 'abnormality' have been ridiculed, discarded, locked up, etc.
Mental retardation, dwarfism, physical defects, etc. Slowly, we have come to understand that this is just part of nature, among other things. I think acceptance of gays is just part of our evolution as a society. Slaves are bad, folks aren't killed for disobeying the Bible, buy beer on Sunday, witches don't exist, and gays aren't evil perverts. I am thankful I was born semi-normal.  I do feel for folks that have had to endure pain because of how they were born.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> With a title like that, who can resist?
> 
> Looking at the thread in Around the Campfire about gays
> 
> ...


An observation from the thread you linked to -
Those who supported or at least weren't against the 2 dads concept justified it by it being what was best for the girls - to be loved, cared for etc.
Those opposed to it cited bible passages etc.
That speaks volumes to me.
I think it's a great thing society is moving in the direction of it being "safe" to choose the very real well being of the girls/kids as opposed to the priority of defending unprovable indoctrination.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

Welp, as Ben Carson made the world aware of, homosexuality is more often than not a choice.   perversion.   what other animals choose to 'mate' with same sex for life?    Also, as a side note, an oxymoron is "monogamous male homosexual couple".    Let them be a union, but don't define them as "married".


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2016)

My answer is addressing the "openness and acceptance of gays".



ambush80 said:


> Is it a good thing?


No.


ambush80 said:


> Why?


God says that it is wrong.


ambush80 said:


> Is it a bad thing?


Yes.


ambush80 said:


> Why?


God says that it is wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Welp, as Ben Carson made the world aware of, homosexuality is more often than not a choice.   perversion.   what other animals choose to 'mate' with same sex for life?    Also, as a side note, an oxymoron is "monogamous male homosexual couple".    Let them be a union, but don't define them as "married".



What does it matter what they call themselves? 

If I were to call myself black, or hispanic, not being of those descents, what cheapening of their ancestry am I perpetrating? 

I can understand why you wouldn't want your church condoning it as a marriage, but what does it matter that they use the term marriage, themselves, colloquially to refer to the same legal status, if not religious, as you do?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> what other animals choose to 'mate' with same sex for life?


Flamingos, Dolphins


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What does it matter what they call themselves?
> 
> If I were to call myself black, or hispanic, not being of those descents, what cheapening of their ancestry am I perpetrating?
> 
> I can understand why you wouldn't want your church condoning it as a marriage, but what does it matter that they use the term marriage, themselves, colloquially to refer to the same legal status, if not religious, as you do?



Good question, Striper.   I guess my answer would be that marriage was defined by Christ as man and woman, and because homosexuality was always spoken of in a negative light throughout scripture.    You're right, though; my objections are primarily from a biblical Christian standpoint.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

660griz said:


> Flamingos, Dolphins



not saying that you're wrong...but I'm gonna have to research this one!   lol     

Lifetime partners?   Flamingos and dolphins?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> God says that it is wrong.



God? Or, the Bible?
What does God say about slavery? I wonder why God is not opposed to that?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> not saying that you're wrong...but I'm gonna have to research this one!   lol
> 
> Lifetime partners?   Flamingos and dolphins?



Sea Lions
More than 80% of New Zealand Sea Lion males exclusively mate with other males.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

660griz said:


> Sea Lions
> More than 80% of New Zealand Sea Lion males exclusively mate with other males.



Well, I learned something today.   I stand corrected.  lol    And with that, I think I'll leave this discussion to you guys!


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Well, I learned something today.   I stand corrected.  lol    And with that, I think I'll leave this discussion to you guys!



Think about something, why would any person, in the current or past climate for gays, 'decide' to be gay? 
That would be close to choosing to be black in the 1800s.
Ummm, no.
Just something to think about.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

many go into prison straight, and come out gay.    No doubt they made a switch in prison.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> many go into prison straight, and come out gay.    No doubt they made a switch in prison.



May not have been voluntary.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

660griz said:


> May not have been voluntary.



  touche


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Well, I learned something today.   I stand corrected.  lol    And with that, I think I'll leave this discussion to you guys!


Do us a favor. Share what you learned with your buddies. We hear that same ol tired, debunked years ago, argument all the time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Good question, Striper.   I guess my answer would be that marriage was defined by Christ as man and woman, and because homosexuality was always spoken of in a negative light throughout scripture.    You're right, though; my objections are primarily from a biblical Christian standpoint.



Based on the above, here's another one:

Did the construct of marriage exist before Jesus? Were they valid unions in the eyes of God?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

I don't want to see public flamboyant affection between two guys or two girls any more than I want to see a man and a woman making out on a park bench or in a restaurant.
That being said, I could not care less who or what people are attracted to. If two guys want to share a life together so be it. Same for two women. As with anything, some people want to push the limits and always take things over the top beyond normal and that doesn't work for me whether your gay or not.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> My answer is addressing the "openness and acceptance of gays".
> 
> 
> No.
> ...



A single 30 something year old guy in constant company with twelve other guys eating together, sleeping together, traveling together, living together for years.

It was the original Real World San Francisco via Jerusalem.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> My answer is addressing the "openness and acceptance of gays".
> 
> 
> No.
> ...




I get that but it's hardly apologetic.

You brought a tennis racket to the football field.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2016)

660griz said:


> God? Or, the Bible?


Yes


660griz said:


> What does God say about slavery?


That all men are slaves. A slave is to submit himself to his master. A master is to treat his slave well.

I understand this to be your "Look, squirrel!" moment. You must have a limited view of slavery. I doubt that I have the time to address all of your limitations.


660griz said:


> I wonder why God is not opposed to that?


What is to there oppose?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Well, I learned something today.   I stand corrected.  lol    And with that, I think I'll leave this discussion to you guys!



Yup.  There are many, many more examples.  Now the question is: If you hear another Christian or a Pastor talk about how animals don't act gay will you correct them?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> A single 30 something year old guy in constant company with twelve other guys eating together, sleeping together, traveling together, living together for years.
> 
> It was the original Real World San Francisco via Jerusalem.


Another "Look, squirrel!" moment. I am getting bored already.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I get that but it's hardly apologetic.
> 
> You brought a tennis racket to the football field.


What is the word count that attains apologetic status?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Another "Look, squirrel!" moment. I am getting bored already.



Bored, oh no!
It was more of a "look, a gay squirrel" moment.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Based on the above, here's another one:
> 
> Did the construct of marriage exist before Jesus? Were they valid unions in the eyes of God?



lol    honestly, I have no idea...I've 'read' before that 'marriage' was a God-ordained precept...but I don't know when or where.   Maybe someone else can give the biblical specifics.    All I know is it's nasty looking and gross, (especially butch women)   and that it has been shown that people can choose homosexuality after 'toying' with it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Yup.  There are many, many more examples.  Now the question is: If you hear another Christian or a Pastor talk about how animals don't act gay will you correct them?



Actually, I've never heard anyone say that some animals don't act gay...I knew that some do.   I don't have to look past my own dog for that       What I was not aware of (and I'm assuming it's true based on what i've read here) is that some animals choose to mate for life with a same-sex animal rather than opposite sex.    a homosexual act because there are no opposite sex choices is different than an animal choosing same-sex for life.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

660griz said:


> Throughout human history, folks that were born with some 'abnormality' have been ridiculed, discarded, locked up, etc.
> Mental retardation, dwarfism, physical defects, etc. Slowly, we have come to understand that this is just part of nature, among other things. I think acceptance of gays is just part of our evolution as a society. Slaves are bad, folks aren't killed for disobeying the Bible, buy beer on Sunday, witches don't exist, and gays aren't evil perverts. I am thankful I was born semi-normal.  I do feel for folks that have had to endure pain because of how they were born.



I don't think that it would be an exaggeration at all to say that religious persecution of the non-normatives has been lessened not from within but from pressures of a modern, educated and secular society.

Would anyone like to explain why those things in blue are bad?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Actually, I've never heard anyone say that some animals don't act gay...I knew that some do.   I don't have to look past my own dog for that       What I was not aware of (and I'm assuming it's true based on what i've read here) is that some animals choose to mate for life with a same-sex animal rather than opposite sex.    a homosexual act because there are no opposite sex choices is different than an animal choosing same-sex for life.


Humans are animals.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Actually, I've never heard anyone say that some animals don't act gay...I knew that some do.   I don't have to look past my own dog for that       What I was not aware of (and I'm assuming it's true based on what i've read here) is that some animals choose to mate for life with a same-sex animal rather than opposite sex.    a homosexual act because there are no opposite sex choices is different than an animal choosing same-sex for life.



Animals participate in that behavior for many reasons.  Sometime as in primates it's for social cohesion.  

So would you correct a pastor?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Can anyone share Biblical passages that refer to this?



Second Timothy 3:2.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Humans are animals.



Negative, Ghostrider.  

We are special; created in the image of God.  Dogs don't go to Heaven.  I think we can advance the discussion even if we surrender this point entirely.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Animals participate in that behavior for many reasons.  Sometime as in primates it's for social cohesion.
> 
> So would you correct a pastor?



I'd correct anyone that said that there are no other animals that perform homosexual acts.    I would have done that long ago, though.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Second Timothy 3:2.
> 
> This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.



When were they not like that (particularly the incontinence)?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> What is the word count that attains apologetic status?



It's not apologetic unless you use the word ecumenical.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Negative, Ghostrider.
> 
> We are special; created in the image of God.  Dogs don't go to Heaven.  I think we can advance the discussion even if we surrender this point entirely.


Why surrender the truth? Just to be able to play along in fantasy land?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2016)

2 Timothy 3:2
For people will love only themselves 

Autosexuals?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> I doubt that I have the time to address all of your limitations.



Now that is funny right there. 
Your answers are God said it, God did it, and "look, squirrel...moment" and you talk about my limitations?
Good one. 
God has not written a word of the Bible and you know it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> When were they not like that (particularly the incontinence)?



Before we disobeyed God; Particularly after we decided to murder Him.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 12, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> 2 Timothy 3:2
> For people will love only themselves
> 
> Autosexuals?



Evil will do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Before we disobeyed God; Particularly after we decided to murder Him.



Which is it?
Was Jesus made to be sacrificed or was it up to us?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2016)

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27In 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.

These were not individuals who were mating for life as homosexuals. They were married heterosexuals on the down low.
They "exchanged" and they "abandoned" what they had previously been practicing. 
They also exchanged the truth for a lie.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:26
> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
> 27In 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.
> 
> ...



I think the lifestyle of your average run-of-the-mill homosexual male can suffice to show why God would hate that sin.      It's not a lifestyle of "keep yourself only to him, as long as you both shall live".


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Why surrender the truth? Just to be able to play along in fantasy land?



In a sense.  The point of whether or not we are made in the image of God and are different than animals because of our soul doesn't affect the discussion about how society, including the Bible Belt has changed its views about gays.

It doesn't matter anyway because they can't agree on whether or not dogs have souls.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Before we disobeyed God; Particularly after we decided to murder Him.



So....it's been the End Times....forever.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    honestly, I have no idea...I've 'read' before that 'marriage' was a God-ordained precept...but I don't know when or where.   Maybe someone else can give the biblical specifics.    All I know is it's nasty looking and gross, (especially butch women)   and that it has been shown that people can choose homosexuality after 'toying' with it.



Yeah, there is some choice to some desire and that I'll acknowledge. Some choose to do things because it tweaks their nose. 

Others, and I know a few, who were born to their desires. When we were all kids and the boys were finding out they liked girls, innately, so did a couple girls learn that they did as well. 

I look at my own life, and I know some will say that it's innate to me because it's natural order, but I know that I didn't choose to like girls, women now. They were just so attractive to me that I didn't want anything else. I know my gay friends felt the same way. The only reason they didn't come out sooner was because they still weren't responsible for their own lives, i.e. their parents would be furious with them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> It's not apologetic unless you use the word ecumenical.




I was hoping to answer in such a way that would prevent Griz and Bullet from scurrying to their safe places. It didn't work.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Which is it?
> Was Jesus made to be sacrificed or was it up to us?



Yes.



ambush80 said:


> So....it's been the End Times....forever.



No.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2016)

For those of you that acquire your standards of behavior from animals, where do you draw the line?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> For those of you that acquire your standards of behavior from animals, where do you draw the line?



I'm partial to flinging pooh when I'm upset. Y'all should be lucky these discussions don't happen in person.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> I was hoping to answer in such a way that would prevent Griz and Bullet from scurrying to their safe places. It didn't work.


Whether I hop, skip or scurry I always end up at the truth.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Bored, oh no!
> It was more of a "look, a gay squirrel" moment.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 12, 2016)

"Them boys aren't just fishin' up in them mountains!" 

Brokeback Mountain.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

centerpin fan said:


>


Hysterical cpf!


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Hysterical cpf!



Thought you would like.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No.



You said since before The Fall.  By your count that should be pretty much since the Dawn of Man.  How old was Adam before he got tossed out?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

centerpin fan said:


>



One of my fave's and strangely appropriate to the conversation......:


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

C'mon guys.  I've thrown some juicy meat on the grill.  Nobody wants to touch it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Them boys aren't just fishin' up in them mountains!"
> 
> Brokeback Mountain.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Them boys aren't just fishin' up in them mountains!"
> 
> Brokeback Mountain.



Mountain of Olives?


----------



## RH Clark (Apr 12, 2016)

660griz said:


> Sea Lions
> More than 80% of New Zealand Sea Lion males exclusively mate with other males.



I'm not buying that. Who says, a bunch of gay activists? What did scientists do, tag 80% of New Zealand Sea Lions and watch them 24-7 over their complete life? I don't think so.

What they observed was 80% of excited males attempting sex with whatever happened to be available and drew their own conclusions about gay Sea Lions. What they saw was just animals being excited. You could just as easily say that 100% of male dogs prefer to mate with a human leg.


----------



## fireman32 (Apr 12, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> For those of you that acquire your standards of behavior from animals, where do you draw the line?



I wonder that myself, Grizzlies kill baby Grizzlies you know.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

Gay Penguins


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

fireman32 said:


> I wonder that myself, Grizzlies kill baby Grizzlies you know.



So do God fearing folk.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2016)

RH Clark said:


> I'm not buying that. Who says, a bunch of gay activists? What did scientists do, tag 80% of New Zealand Sea Lions and watch them 24-7 over their complete life? I don't think so.
> 
> What they observed was 80% of excited males attempting sex with whatever happened to be available and drew their own conclusions about gay Sea Lions. What they saw was just animals being excited. You could just as easily say that 100% of male dogs prefer to mate with a human leg.


Classic!
You don't agree with the scientists findings by questioning how long they observed the sea lions, then in your next breath you tell us what they observed and go into detail on why.
Exactly how many seconds did you spend researching how they got their findings and how long did you spend in New Zealand studying sea lions to come up with your detailed report above?


----------



## fireman32 (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> So do God fearing folk.
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/



That's the thing, if we justify ourselves by everything that happens in the wild, then morality has no purpose with people.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> For those of you that acquire your standards of behavior from animals, where do you draw the line?



Even when way back in the boonies on a hunting trip, I still drink filtered water. Also, I continue to use toilet paper. I know some folks just use their hand but, I don't think I could ever eat another sandwich if I did that. 
I also buy food from the grocery store. Sure, it is fun to hunt and gather every now and again but, sometimes I just want to eat now. 
Oh, and swimming in cold water...I draw the line. I know some animals do it and they can have it.
Killing my wife's children so she will be ready to have more. That just wouldn't work in todays society. Plus, she may not be real happy. So, Lions, you can have that. I just don't want to watch.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

fireman32 said:


> That's the thing, if we justify ourselves by everything that happens in the wild, then morality has no purpose with people.



I will try this again. Folks say that homosexuality is not natural. Proof is provided that it is natural. Proof is provided that some folks are born attracted to the opposite sex. Natural. 
Morality and instinct are separate things.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> I will try this again. Folks say that homosexuality is not natural. Proof is provided that it is natural. Proof is provided that some folks are born attracted to the opposite sex. Natural.
> Morality and instinct are separate things.



And that's when they go, "Well, the Bible says, so your proof is irrelevant." 

It's a never-ending cycle.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> I will try this again. Folks say that homosexuality is not natural. Proof is provided that it is natural. Proof is provided that some folks are born attracted to the opposite sex. Natural.
> Morality and instinct are separate things.



It's definately not natural or even logical,because if everyone turned gay we would very soon be extinct.
And don't give me that test tube baby crap either because that ain't natural or logical either.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> It's definately not natural



He just showed you where it occurs in nature. 

Occurs in nature = natural. I don't get what's so hard about that.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> It's definately not natural or even logical,because if everyone turned gay we would very soon be extinct.
> And don't give me that test tube baby crap either because that ain't natural or logical either.



Can every woman have a child? If every woman was infertile, we would soon be extinct. HOWEVER, they are not and everyone is not born gay. I think we are safe. 
I wasn't about to give you the test tube baby crap.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 13, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He just showed you where it occurs in nature.
> 
> Occurs in nature = natural. I don't get what's so hard about that.



Sure,it happens in nature,because the whole creation is cursed.But nature would become extinct if the entire natural world became gay.That's why it's not logically something that promotes life.Rather it diminishes life.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Sure,it happens in nature,because the whole creation is cursed.But nature would become extinct if the entire natural world became gay.That's why it's not logically something that promotes life.Rather it diminishes life.


Unfortunately the fact that gay people can and do reproduce with people of the opposite sex pretty much makes your argument as silly as a football bat.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 13, 2016)

I don't base my opinions and beliefs and view of the world around me on the Bible. I still don't have much use for gay folks, gay seals, gay penguins, or transgendered squirrels. I don't really care much one way or the other what they do as long as I don't have to see it or participate in it. I do not think it is a good thing, though, and that opinion is not based on the Bible, just natural distaste of the whole thing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Sure,it happens in nature,because the whole creation is cursed.But nature would become extinct if the entire natural world became gay.That's why it's not logically something that promotes life.Rather it diminishes life.



Splitting hairs on a slippery slope. You argument is invalid.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 13, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Unfortunately the fact that gay people can and do reproduce with people of the opposite sex pretty much makes your argument as silly as a football bat.



So,are you saying it would not be logical for gays but it would be logical for bi-sexuals?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> Gay Penguins



I'm not so sure of their use of the word gay here.  I can't put my finger on it but it doesn't seem entirely correct.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> It's definitely not natural





welderguy said:


> Sure,it happens in nature,



Therefore, it is natural.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> So,are you saying it would not be logical for gays but it would be logical for bi-sexuals?



First using the word "logical" in conjunction with your argument is ridiculous as it contains none.
Being gay or straight or bisexual does not limit ones reproductive capabilities.
Sperm and egg.


----------



## RH Clark (Apr 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Classic!
> You don't agree with the scientists findings by questioning how long they observed the sea lions, then in your next breath you tell us what they observed and go into detail on why.
> Exactly how many seconds did you spend researching how they got their findings and how long did you spend in New Zealand studying sea lions to come up with your detailed report above?



Just exercising a healthy level of skepticism, as the other side of the argument will always do. Is it preferred to blindly take the word of a stranger. I think only when it supports your position, yes classic!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't base my opinions and beliefs and view of the world around me on the Bible. I still don't have much use for gay folks, gay seals, gay penguins, or transgendered squirrels. I don't really care much one way or the other what they do as long as I don't have to see it or participate in it. I do not think it is a good thing, though, and that opinion is not based on the Bible, just natural distaste of the whole thing.



So do you think this slowly building surge of acceptance of gays is a bad thing?  And if so, do you think any of the past responses to gays: shunning, marginalizing, ostracizing, criminalizing, vilifying or humiliating should be maintained?  I'm down with, and partially in agreement with your distaste for gayness, but is there a practical argument against gays being wholly accepted?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> So do you think this slowly building surge of acceptance of gays is a bad thing?  And if so, do you think any of the past responses to gays: shunning, marginalizing, ostracizing, criminalizing, vilifying or humiliating should be maintained?  I'm down with, and partially in agreement with your distaste for gayness, but is there a practical argument against gays being wholly accepted?



When I get back, I'm going to try to answer my own question, too.   A quick search found these:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/ReynoldsHomosexuality.php

http://www.solitaryroad.com/a421.html

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/08/06/us-author-gay-couples-are-perverts-that-corrupt-our-kids/

https://americanvision.org/12020/12-reasons-homosexual-marriage-will-wreck-the-nation/


Fascinating stuff.  I'll review them in detail later.  Maybe someone could start unpacking all that stuff.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

RH Clark said:


> Just exercising a healthy level of skepticism, as the other side of the argument will always do. Is it preferred to blindly take the word of a stranger. I think only when it supports your position, yes classic!



I am not the anonymous author of a 2000 year old book so, I am not asking you to blindly accept anything. The researchers or I could be wrong, do your own research and prove em wrong. No feelings will be hurt.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 13, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> So do you think this slowly building surge of acceptance of gays is a bad thing?  And if so, do you think any of the past responses to gays: shunning, marginalizing, ostracizing, criminalizing, vilifying or humiliating should be maintained?  I'm down with, and partially in agreement with your distaste for gayness, but is there a practical argument against gays being wholly accepted?



When it gets to the point it's at now- that the opinions of a few of the loudest gays trump the opinions of the vast majority, and it changes our whole society to suit them at our expense, yes-I think it is a bad thing. The "you will be forced to agree with us and embrace us" mentality does not set well with me. Tolerance goes both ways. I do not condone mistreatment of anyone who is gay. I also don't condone special treatment for them.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> I do not condone mistreatment of anyone who is gay. I also don't condone special treatment for them.



I agree. I don't think anyone should get special treatment. I am all for equality. 
What special treatment are they getting?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 13, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> When it gets to the point it's at now- that the opinions of a few of the loudest gays trump the opinions of the vast majority, and it changes our whole society to suit them at our expense, yes-I think it is a bad thing. The "you will be forced to agree with us and embrace us" mentality does not set well with me. Tolerance goes both ways. I do not condone mistreatment of anyone who is gay. I also don't condone special treatment for them.


I think one thing that has to be considered though is that we are a society of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
If being loud is what works....


----------



## JustUs4All (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> I agree. I don't think anyone should get special treatment. I am all for equality.
> What special treatment are they getting?



A baker can refuse to bake a cake for someone who is not in a "special group" without a negative consequence imposed by the .Gov.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

JustUs4All said:


> A baker can refuse to bake a cake for someone who is not in a "special group" without a negative consequence imposed by the .Gov.



Hmmm
Isn't that the baker getting special privileges?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> Hmmm
> Isn't that the baker getting special privileges?



No, up to that point that's freedom of association. It's right there in the 1A. That's also not the same thing as hanging a sign saying gays aren't welcome, like the whites only and colored only signs of days gone by. 

The gays could also patronize another baker, and encourage everyone else to do the same, as a result.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, up to that point that's freedom of association. It's right there in the 1A. That's also not the same thing as hanging a sign saying gays aren't welcome, like the whites only and colored only signs of days gone by.
> 
> The gays could also patronize another baker, and encourage everyone else to do the same, as a result.



Depends.
When the right to be free from compelled association is exercised on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, competing constitutional rights clash. Such was the dilemma faced by the Court in roberts v. united states jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). The Jaycees is a national organization whose bylaws limited full membership to men age eighteen to thirty-five. When a group of women challenged their exclusion, this policy was held unconstitutional. The Court found that the state's interest in eliminating gender discrimination outweighed the male Jaycees' interest in freedom from compelled association.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> Depends.
> When the right to be free from compelled association is exercised on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, competing constitutional rights clash. Such was the dilemma faced by the Court in roberts v. united states jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). The Jaycees is a national organization whose bylaws limited full membership to men age eighteen to thirty-five. When a group of women challenged their exclusion, this policy was held unconstitutional. The Court found that the state's interest in eliminating gender discrimination outweighed the male Jaycees' interest in freedom from compelled association.



I understand the argument. I'm just interested in the most freedom for all and against forced interaction.

So men wouldn't let women in the Jaycee's, go form your own club and don't let men in.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I understand the argument. I'm just interested in the most freedom for all and against forced interaction.
> 
> So men wouldn't let women in the Jaycee's, go form your own club and don't let men in.



I agree to a point but, would anyone recommend a black guy start his own business and just let blacks in? 
The civil rights started in much the same manner. 

I also think you should have to put your discriminations on your business plan and on the front of your business. That would save a lot of awkward moments. 

"Oh look, that business doesn't cater to redneck atheist." 
"Oh well, maybe the next camo G-string store will."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

For the most part people are against homosexuality for religious reasons. There are a few Atheist that don't like homosexuals and I can respect that. One shouldn't have to use religion as the only means to discriminate. If you don't like somebody, you don't like them. You shouldn't need a reason.

That being said and inline with the OP, could it be that the younger generation is less religious than the older and this is why we see homosexuality being accepted or tolerated?


----------



## fireman32 (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> I will try this again. Folks say that homosexuality is not natural. Proof is provided that it is natural. Proof is provided that some folks are born attracted to the opposite sex. Natural.
> Morality and instinct are separate things.



People are born many ways, thus making the line of acceptance very blurry.  We all know a natural behavior that we won't accept, so who draws the line?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

A lot of younger people believe in a supreme being but aren't Christians. Maybe in their worldview Gays are acceptable.

What about heterosexuals who practice birth control? Doesn't that go against God's plan and against nature?
What about heterosexuals who practice unnatural sex acts with other heterosexuals? I realize this discussion is about gays but there are many types of sexual immorality and unnatural sex acts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

If we are using what is natural and/or unnatural for a basis of what is right or wrong, where do we draw the line? Tattoos? Piercings? Various types of sexual acts? Drinking milk past weaning? Women wearing pants? Left handedness? Mixed marriages?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Left handedness?



Excellent examples. Left handed discrimination due to Biblical references is particularly appropriate. 
Kids were forced to change back in the day.


----------



## JustUs4All (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> Depends.
> When the right to be free from compelled association is exercised on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, competing constitutional rights clash. Such was the dilemma faced by the Court in roberts v. united states jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). The Jaycees is a national organization whose bylaws limited full membership to men age eighteen to thirty-five. When a group of women challenged their exclusion, this policy was held unconstitutional. The Court found that the state's interest in eliminating gender discrimination outweighed the male Jaycees' interest in freedom from compelled association.



Every word you post above is true, but...
In my opinion, The Laws against discrimination for certain preferred groups and the similar holdings by the courts are perversions of the Constitution as are the special crimes against certain preferred groups. There are many issues that the Legislature and the Courts have missed the boat on.  This is one.



660griz said:


> Hmmm
> Isn't that the baker getting special privileges?



No, that is the baker exercising his right to associate with the people of his choosing and not those of the Government's choosing.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about heterosexuals who practice birth control? Doesn't that go against God's plan and against nature?



Didn't a pope condemn condom usage in Africa?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

JustUs4All said:


> Every word you post above is true, but...
> In my opinion, The Laws against discrimination for certain preferred groups and the similar holdings by the courts are perversions of the Constitution as are the special crimes against certain preferred groups. There are many issues that the Legislature and the Courts have missed the boat on.  This is one.
> 
> 
> ...



I would be all for it if he could also do it for any group. Blacks, women, Asians, dwarfs, atheist, vegetarians, any body that is a member of PETA, etc.
But, the baker can't.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

Yet there are a lot of left handers in the world going around telling us it's OK to use Satan's hand. Some are now demanding equality. 
I've never liked left handers, it's just not natural in God's perfect world. I'm left handed. I'd never join a club that would have someone like me as a member.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2016)

I was in the "gay hater" club for awhile. I was really freaked and grossed out by the entire concept. What man could look at another man and be sexually attracted to them? They had to have some mental defect. That just aint natural. 
Then, I met some gays, learned some things, and hopefully matured a little. I still haven't seen Broke Back Mountain and probably never will. I just can't watch two dudes kiss. Gives me the heeby jeebies. However, watching a hetero couple make out in public is kinda gross too. On the other hand, I can relate to lesbians. The female form is just attractive, I don't care who you are.  I still don't understand how they can not be attracted to men and one of the two usually looks like a man. I am going to ask em one day. It really bugs me.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 13, 2016)

I think some of yall may just be one camping trip away from being a full fledged limp wrist girly man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think some of yall may just be one camping trip away from being a full fledged limp wrist girly man.



You know how Bullet says you should stick to your coloring books because the adults are trying to have a conversation here?........


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2016)

After being married for ten years and having two children, my sister in law is now married to a woman. Except for what goes on behind closed doors they do not act, over-act or do anything that would seem out of the ordinary to anyone.
In fact they are two of the most generous people that I know. For my birthday they bought me an absolutely gorgeous watch which hit me out of nowhere. I thanked them profusely but later in the day I asked them what had led them to purchase me such a nice gift.
They both said that about 6 months prior I mentioned that I want a watch. I smiled and thanked them again but clarified that I said I wanna watch...not I want a watch.
Oh well, if anyone wants to know what time it is just ask me...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> After being married for ten years and having two children, my sister in law is now married to a woman. Except for what goes on behind closed doors they do not act, over-act or do anything that would seem out of the ordinary to anyone.
> In fact they are two of the most generous people that I know. For my birthday they bought me an absolutely gorgeous watch which hit me out of nowhere. I thanked them profusely but later in the day I asked them what had led them purchase me such a nice gift.
> They both said that about 6 months prior I mentioned that I want a watch. I smiled and thanked them again but clarified that I said I wanna watch...not I want a watch.
> Oh well, if anyone wants to know what time it is just ask me...



lols


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think some of yall may just be one camping trip away from being a full fledged limp wrist girly man.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think some of yall may just be one camping trip away from being a full fledged limp wrist girly man.


You would know...ssstinker...


----------



## JustUs4All (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> I would be all for it if he could also do it for any group. Blacks, women, Asians, dwarfs, atheist, vegetarians, any body that is a member of PETA, etc.
> But, the baker can't.




Oh but he can for all but the special protected groups.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe next birthday


Probably too late, they are on to me...not into me.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 13, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> You know how Bullet says you should stick to your coloring books because the adults are trying to have a conversation here?........



This is special for you Walt...and bullet.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> This is special for you Walt...and bullet.


Bless your little girls heart she did awesome.
She got all three of us.
I am spot on.
Walt could be mistaken for an Olympian. 
And she put a rainbow in to represent you. Ssstinker.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> This is special for you Walt...and bullet.



See now THAT'S funny!
HAAAAAAYYYY


----------



## welderguy (Apr 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Bless your little girls heart she did awesome.
> She got all three of us.
> I am spot on.
> Walt could be mistaken for an Olympian.
> And she put a rainbow in to represent you. Ssstinker.



Thanks.It's one of my better pieces,I think.Although I couldn't get the shading on Walt's upper lip right.I did capture the man love pretty well though,don't you think? You two look good together.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Thanks.It's one of my better pieces,I think.Although I couldn't get the shading on Walt's upper lip right.I did capture the man love pretty well though,don't you think? You two look good together.


I will give credit where credit is due, you cracked me up with the entire piece. It was hysterical.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

660griz said:


> I was in the "gay hater" club for awhile. I was really freaked and grossed out by the entire concept. What man could look at another man and be sexually attracted to them? They had to have some mental defect. That just aint natural.
> Then, I met some gays, learned some things, and hopefully matured a little. I still haven't seen Broke Back Mountain and probably never will. I just can't watch two dudes kiss. Gives me the heeby jeebies. However, watching a hetero couple make out in public is kinda gross too. On the other hand, I can relate to lesbians. The female form is just attractive, I don't care who you are.  I still don't understand how they can not be attracted to men and one of the two usually looks like a man. I am going to ask em one day. It really bugs me.



I don't understand why a gay man wants a partner that looks like a woman. You'd think he'd want the most macho gay man in town. 
Same with the lesbians, if one doesn't like to date men, why date a woman who looks like a man?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think some of yall may just be one camping trip away from being a full fledged limp wrist girly man.



Just think how decorated the campsite would be. I'd be OK camping with anyone who doesn't drink too much and hoop & holler all night.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2016)

It was probably one of those trendy "boyfriend" watches the girls are wearing. Actually men are now wearing bigger and thicker watches. Retro, you know!


----------



## 1776Flintlock (Apr 13, 2016)

No way


----------



## Flaustin1 (Apr 13, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand why a gay man wants a partner that looks like a woman. You'd think he'd want the most macho gay man in town.
> Same with the lesbians, if one doesn't like to date men, why date a woman who looks like a man?



This is the main reason why I question whether someone is born gay or if its a perversion/choice they made.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2016)

JustUs4All said:


> Oh but he can for all but the special protected groups.



There all protected groups. Except maybe vegetarians and atheist.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think some of yall may just be one camping trip away from being a full fledged limp wrist girly man.



I think the Bible helps validate your phobia.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 14, 2016)

Flaustin1 said:


> This is the main reason why I question whether someone is born gay or if its a perversion/choice they made.



And the answer is yes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2016)

Flaustin1 said:


> This is the main reason why I question whether someone is born gay or if its a perversion/choice they made.


I think there are soo many examples of the opposite being true that it's not giving you any legitimate information to help answer your question.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2016)

Believers,

So, what would you have gay people do?  I've seen videos of "cured" gays but they never talk about what they actually do in their minds to combat their urges.  I suppose the first thing they should do when a gay thought comes is feel guilty about it.  Then they should pray to Jesus to make the thoughts go away.  Then they should focus on how much they love Jesus and don't want to upset him.  Is that about right?

Is that what you guys do when you see a pretty girl?

My Dad was a Baptist Preacher.  He used to say that when he saw a pretty girl that the Lord made it so that he could admire and not desire.  Is that how it works?  Is that what gays should do when they see an attractive man?  Admire and not desire?  I call Bull poo.

I suppose it's the same thing a Christian fatso should do at Wednesday Supper.  They should pray to Jesus to free them from the grips of that 3rd piece of fried chicken. Do y'all ever tell a brother Christian fatso to leave the chicken, for Christ's sake?  Do you pray with them until their urge goes away?

I have all kinds of thoughts go through my head in the course of a day.  Many of them would be considered sinful.  I can't imagine feeling that guilty all day long every day.  Seems unhealthy.  The real bad thoughts I can get rid of most of the time or at least put them aside until later as not to interfere with my activities.  Sometimes it takes immersion in the thought to try to understand it; where it comes from and why I have it.  Sometimes it's helpful to just observe the thought coming and going.  Is that what gays should do with their gay thoughts?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

Why is one type of un-natural sex a perversion but other types of un-natural sex are widely accepted and practiced?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 14, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why is one type of un-natural sex a perversion but other types of un-natural sex are widely accepted and practiced?



I think you're confusing tolerance with acceptance. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm also sure you're not a fan of some of the things I do and vice versa. 

"I may not agree with what you say (read: do) but I will defend to the death your right to say (do) it."

The only caveat to that is victimization, where there is a victim, or high probability of a victim being created, that's where they lose me. Two consenting adults, yeah I'll support that in the sense that they should be free to live their lives as they wish, the same as I am. 

Given that gay couples have to go through more, considering they aren't as widely accepted, as you put it, as heteros when they adopt, and adoptive heteros are on average much better parents than some birth parents, the argument about gays being destructive to children doesn't hold water. That is, unless you can find a gay couple that was able to adopt a child and then corrupted it. But even if you do, simply due to the numbers in play, I would call it blind that I could show you 10 birth parents, hetero and thus natural and perfectly acceptable by your morality, who have committed horrible atrocities to their children.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Christians have various degrees of what repentance means. Does one have to stop practicing the sin of is just feeling guilty about it good enough? Does the drunkard need to stop drinking for true repentance or just feel guilty when he has a drink?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Believers,
> 
> So, what would you have gay people do?


My first thought was "Stop hurting me". My second thought was "I am selfish".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 14, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 5:28
> But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
> 
> Christians have various degrees of what repentance means. Does one have to stop practicing the sin of is just feeling guilty about it good enough? Does the drunkard need to stop drinking for true repentance or just feel guilty when he has a drink?



To me repentance lies in the act, not the thought. Otherwise one is duplicitous.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> My first thought was "Stop hurting me". My second thought was "I am selfish".



That's deep, Bro.  

What did you do then?  And what did you mean by "stop hurting me"?  Are they hurting you?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 5:28
> But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
> 
> Christians have various degrees of what repentance means. Does one have to stop practicing the sin of is just feeling guilty about it good enough? Does the drunkard need to stop drinking for true repentance or just feel guilty when he has a drink?



If you don't mind me asking, what do you do if you get a little lusty or gluttonous or prideful or whatever...?  Do your recognize the thought as it arises in your consciousness and then rebuke it?  Anybody?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2016)

I suppose what I was really getting at with the original post was "Does a Biblical stance on the subject of gays make your life better?  Does it make society better?"  If your reasons are sound, I'll helplessly believe them.  If they're rational I'll adopt them.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

Instead of Christians focusing on homosexuals having gay sex, they need to focus on married heterosexuals having gay sex.
Things that can hurt the marriage. Adultery, fornication, sleeping with young men, exchanging, exchanging the truth about God for a lie. Exchanging worshiping God for idol worship, exchanging hetero sex for homo sex. 
Any and all things that will hurt a loving relationship, lust, jealousy, etc., sin isn't just physical or acting things out. Anger can be mental and affect the marriage or the relationship of brothers. 
So the way most Christians see homosexuality, I can't see why it would make society better if it was gone.
What would make society better would be to eradicate adultery, fornication, lust, anger, revenge, cheating, etc. especially between two folks in a loving relationship.
Don't do or say anything without your wife that you wouldn't say with her. I'm not any better at this than any of ya'll but I do know what would make society better.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

Personally, I'm not too happy with some of the things Pagans do such as wild parties of drinking, drugs, orgies, heteros sleeping with any and all, up all night, worshipping idols, wallowing around nude in oil, and things of this nature. Whether the participants are gay or straight at some point it doesn't matter.
When one goes all out hog wild, bad things happen. They don't think straight and their spouse is the furthest thing in their mind.
Their children are the furthest thing in their mind. This could be gambling, fishing, partying, dancing, or quilt making.
When one's self takes over, sexual immorality takes over.

I'll add Pagans or Christians whose "self" takes over.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

From a scriptural or natural view of sex, anything that doesn't provide a way for pro-creation. 

1 Corinthians 7:3-4
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That's deep, Bro.
> 
> What did you do then?  And what did you mean by "stop hurting me"?  Are they hurting you?


What I mean by "stop hurting me" is simply "stop causing me pain, discomfort".

Yes, they are hurting me. My current employment has me working alongside several, both men and women. The break room is a place where they talk openly about the acts performed on each other. Not all the time, but frequently enough that I take my breaks and eat my lunch in my truck. The acts, by my way of thinking, are impossible to perform without causing internal injury or death. I have not researched it, but take their word for it.

The pain they cause me is both psychological and physical. The psychological impacts are distress, anxiety and repulsion. Physical impacts are headaches, nausea, sleeplessness and fatigue.

As far as their "there is no harm done" argument goes, it just isn't true.

I have endured it for two years now, but I told my wife that I may quit today.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> What I mean by "stop hurting me" is simply "stop causing me pain, discomfort".
> 
> Yes, they are hurting me. My current employment has me working alongside several, both men and women. The break room is a place where they talk openly about the acts performed on each other. Not all the time, but frequently enough that I take my breaks and eat my lunch in my truck. The acts, by my way of thinking, are impossible to perform without causing internal injury or death. I have not researched it, but take their word for it.
> 
> ...



Do you have a HR department? No body could get away with that at my company. Just a hint that somebody was uncomfortable and all heck breaks loose.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2016)

660griz said:


> Do you have a HR department? No body could get away with that at my company. Just a hint that somebody was uncomfortable and all heck breaks loose.


Exactly what I was about to type.
That problem could be solved in 2 minutes.
I question why somebody would literally suffer physically for 2 years as opposed to fixing the problem.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

Comedians Key & Peele do this "Office Homophobia" skit where this gay office worker is grossing out his co-worker with his talk. His co-worker tells him to shut-up because it's gross and he doesn't want to hear it. The gay guy accuses him of being a homophobe. He tells him he isn't he just doesn't want to hear about his sexual escapades. At the end of the skit you find out the other co-worker is gay too. Gross is gross.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 14, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Comedians Key & Peele do this "Office Homophobia" skit where this gay office worker is grossing out his co-worker with his talk. His co-worker tells him to shut-up because it's gross and he doesn't want to hear it. The gay guy accuses him of being a homophobe. He tells him he isn't he just doesn't want to hear about his sexual escapades. At the end of the skit you find out the other co-worker is gay too. Gross is gross.



I think it's more accurate to say that inappropriate is inappropriate.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> What I mean by "stop hurting me" is simply "stop causing me pain, discomfort".
> 
> Yes, they are hurting me. My current employment has me working alongside several, both men and women. The break room is a place where they talk openly about the acts performed on each other. Not all the time, but frequently enough that I take my breaks and eat my lunch in my truck. The acts, by my way of thinking, are impossible to perform without causing internal injury or death. I have not researched it, but take their word for it.
> 
> ...



Sounds like your blaming all for the talk of a few. Just about every work place has the braggers and gutter gums. It's gets real old quickly when you have to overhear the details that each are so willing to share. Gay or straight, sexual encounters, hunting greatness,  or their constant willingness to tell anyone that will listen and ten that don't want to how great they are gets sickening.
You should definitely have a talk with HR. 
Like with most things a few bad apples can ruin the batch, but not all the apples are bad.

If you happen to approach HR let us know how they handle it. If they don't or won't do anything it certainly may be time to move on.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose what I was really getting at with the original post was "Does a Biblical stance on the subject of gays make your life better?  Does it make society better?"  If your reasons are sound, I'll helplessly believe them.  If they're rational I'll adopt them.



I too would like to see more responses as to how your lives or society would be better without homosexuality.

One could say that it would please God but then so would no gambling, overdrinking, overeating, premarital sex, and adultery.

One could also say that without God, that wouldn't be possible.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Instead of Christians focusing on homosexuals having gay sex, they need to focus on married heterosexuals having gay sex.
> Things that can hurt the marriage. Adultery, fornication, sleeping with young men, exchanging, exchanging the truth about God for a lie. Exchanging worshiping God for idol worship, exchanging hetero sex for homo sex.
> Any and all things that will hurt a loving relationship, lust, jealousy, etc., sin isn't just physical or acting things out. Anger can be mental and affect the marriage or the relationship of brothers.
> So the way most Christians see homosexuality, I can't see why it would make society better if it was gone.
> ...



Are you sure about that?

Sometimes my wife says "Just don't tell me".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 15, 2016)

If a lost sinner can't stop over eating, over drinking, and over sexing without God inviting himself into one's life, then it's inevitable people will continue to do these things.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> God? Or, the Bible?
> What does God say about slavery? I wonder why God is not opposed to that?



https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

I wonder if being born with certain desires qualify those desires as being acceptable?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/



Summary: Yes, but not the harsh slavery. 
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." 

If this isn't proof enough that only MAN had a hand in writing the Bible, I just don't understand what proof yall need.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I wonder if being born with certain desires qualify those desires as being acceptable?



Depends on the desire and location of desire-ee.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> Summary: Yes, but not the harsh slavery.
> "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."
> 
> If this isn't proof enough that only MAN had a hand in writing the Bible, I just don't understand what proof yall need.



I knew you wouldn't find this helpful or believable or even read it in the same light that I do. I just figured rather than try to type out a rebuttal that I knew you would dismiss I would just copy and paste one. 

I'm feeling a little lazy this morning.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> Depends on the desire and location of desire-ee.



That's not really an answer


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I knew you wouldn't find this helpful or believable or even read it in the same light that I do. I just figured rather than try to type out a rebuttal that I knew you would dismiss I would just copy and paste one.
> 
> I'm feeling a little lazy this morning.



I am pretty sure, at some point in my life, I did read it in the same light as you. I just wish you could read it in the same light as I do now. The Bible and the explanations. 
Think about why there has to be explanations. 

I am feeling lazy too. Friday!


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> That's not really an answer



Well, it was a pretty general question. 
I will give you an example, born gay in San Francisco, probably not a big deal. Born gay in south Georgia or Iran, you could have issues.

What about a mecaphile? What does the Bible say about having relations with a car? Some folks do that and may marry a car. 
Does that create victims and harm anyone?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> That's not really an answer


Actually it's the only accurate answer.
What is "acceptable" is determined by the society you live in.  And depending on when and where you are there can be drastic differences.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually it's the only accurate answer.
> What is "acceptable" is determined by the society you live in.  And depending on when and where you are there can be drastic differences.



I know in advance this is an extreme example but I'm just trying to be clear on where you stand. So you would say that cannibalism is acceptable to you as long as it remains  in a cannibalistic society?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> I am pretty sure, at some point in my life, I did read it in the same light as you. I just wish you could read it in the same light as I do now. The Bible and the explanations.
> Think about why there has to be explanations.
> 
> I am feeling lazy too. Friday!



Why do you wish that? How does my belief in the bible bother you?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Why do you wish that?


So you could get another perspective. 





> How does my belief in the bible bother you?



Well, I wouldn't say it bothers me. I grew up in the south and Baptist and going to church 3 times a week, etc.
I am use to it. 
This forum promotes these discussions so, here we are.

I do find it fascinating that seemingly normal folks can believe a book written by men is the word of God. Because the book written by men says so. 
I find it fascinating that hearing voices in your head is classified as crazy unless it is God and it is a good message. 

Hmmm. Maybe it does bother me. 

Let me try to give you an example so you may better understand my feelings. 

What if you met a 40 year old man, perhaps your neighbor, that works, has a family, and is otherwise a functioning member of society,  that ACTUALLY believes there is a Santa Clause? 

Would that in anyway change your previously held impressions about him?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> So you could get another perspective.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't say it bothers me. I grew up in the south and Baptist and going to church 3 times a week, etc.
> I am use to it.
> ...



I get what you're saying and I get your perspective. Obviously I would think they guy that believes there is actually a Santa Clause would be off his rocker. 

That said, I believe history is pretty clear that there was a Jesus. I just happen to believe that he was who he said he was. 

I do think there is a difference between Jesus and Santa Clause.  But I get that you don't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I know in advance this is an extreme example but I'm just trying to be clear on where you stand. So you would say that cannibalism is acceptable to you as long as it remains  in a cannibalistic society?


Not trying to dodge the question but what I think about it doesn't really matter. What matters is what the cannabilistic society thinks about cannabilism.
I can say, just to complicate matters, I have no problem whatsoever that the folks of the Donner party or that soccer team that crashed in the Andes mountains had them some human kabobs as opposed to starving to death.
Would I think differently about it if they had supplies of other food but chose cannabilism insread? Yes of course.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> That said, I believe history is pretty clear that there was a Jesus. I just happen to believe that he was who he said he was.


 Belief in Jesus is different than belief in the Bible...to me. 



> I do think there is a difference between Jesus and Santa Clause.  But I get that you don't.


I think there is a difference too. 
Now, when you start talking about virgin birth, rose again, Son of God but, really God in man form, etc. That's when the Santa Clause comes in.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> What matters is what the cannabilistic society thinks about cannabilism.




I have no problem with those either, but I was talking about people who choose to kill and eat others because it is the cultural norm. 

Your quote above answered my question clearly enough. Thank you.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> So you would say that cannibalism is acceptable to you as long as it remains in a cannibalistic society?



This wasn't directed at me but, I will answer...Yes.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> Belief in Jesus is different than belief in the Bible...to me.
> 
> 
> I think there is a difference too.
> Now, when you start talking about virgin birth, rose again, Son of God but, really God in man form, etc. That's when the Santa Clause comes in.



Jesus believed the OT was true, or at least according to the rest of the book that you don't believe he said he did.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

What about people who are born with an inclination to pedophilia? Is that ok because they are born that way?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> So you would say that cannibalism is acceptable to you as long as it remains  in a cannibalistic society?



What about partaking in drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ?

Do you think that existing or previous canibalism has any connection to religion?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> What about people who are born with an inclination to pedophilia? Is that ok because they are born that way?



Hmmm. Well, let's see. Is a victim created?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> What about partaking in drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ?



Whether you believe the bible or not, that's symbolic and you know it and not nearly the same thing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I have no problem with those either, but I was talking about people who choose to kill and eat others because it is the cultural norm.
> 
> Your quote above answered my question clearly enough. Thank you.


Just as an aside - and maybe my whole point -
If you were born and raised in a cannabilistic society, odds are you wouldn't have a clue as to why it would be or should be "unacceptable".


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Just as an aside - and maybe my whole point -
> If you were born and raised in a cannabilistic society, odds are you wouldn't have a clue as to why it would be or should be "unacceptable".



I agree with that. I still don't believe it makes it right.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> Hmmm. Well, let's see. Is a victim created?



Sure. Is that the only thing that makes it wrong to you? That a victim was created?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Whether you believe the bible or not, that's symbolic and you know it and not nearly the same thing.



1) Who would make any such symbolic gesture as that? That is just nasty.
2) It is not symbolic to all Christians current and past.
Christians cannot take Communion, according to 1st Corinthians, unless they have faith that they are eating Christ's flesh and blood.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Sure. Is that the only thing that makes it wrong to you? That a victim was created?



That's the biggest one for most of us. Without a victim most of us non-believers fall into a default, "Well, I wouldn't do it, but that's not my monkey and not my circus," live and let live mentality.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Sure. Is that the only thing that makes it wrong to you? That a victim was created?



I can't think of everything right now but, feel free to throw some more out and I will let you know. Right now, in our society and the ones I can think of, yes. 
Do what you want unless it affects someone else. I call it freedom.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> What about people who are born with an inclination to pedophilia? Is that ok because they are born that way?



What about people born with schizophrenia or are sociopaths?  It's not against the law until they act on it.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> What about people born with schizophrenia or are sociopaths?  It's not against the law until they act on it.



Exactly. I heard that a relatively high percentage of folks are psychopaths. Most function very well in society. Some don't.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> 1) Who would make any such symbolic gesture as that? That is just nasty.
> 2) It is not symbolic to all Christians current and past.
> Christians cannot take Communion, according to 1st Corinthians, unless they have faith that they are eating Christ's flesh and blood.



My understanding of Communion and the most accepted understanding is that Christ is asking those who will follow him to practice a remembrance of his sacrifice whereby the bread represents his body and the wine his blood. 

But you knew that.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> I can't think of everything right now but, feel free to throw some more out and I will let you know. Right now, in our society and the ones I can think of, yes.
> Do what you want unless it affects someone else. I call it freedom.



I guess so. But if I had a friend who admitted to me that he had a sexual attraction to young girls but had never acted on it, he would no longer have the freedom to come to my house.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I guess so. But if I had a friend who admitted to me that he had a sexual attraction to young girls but had never acted on it, he would no longer have the freedom to come to my house.



You wouldn't ask how young?

In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older,(Note: when a girl reached puberty prior to the 20th century, she was considered to be an adult in most cultures/societies)


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> My understanding of Communion and the most accepted understanding is that Christ is asking those who will follow him to practice a remembrance of his sacrifice whereby the bread represents his body and the wine his blood.
> 
> But you knew that.



Nope. I didn't know that. 
"Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." 

An easier message would be: Commandment #11-Don't eat people unless they are already dead and you have no other options.
Commandment #12: Hang a crucifix in your church and around your neck to remember my sacrifice.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> You wouldn't ask how young?
> 
> In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older,(Note: when a girl reached puberty prior to the 20th century, she was considered to be an adult in most cultures/societies)




Girls don't reach puberty at 8 or 9 now. In most cases anyway. My grandaddy went to fight in WW2 when he was 15 too, but I wouldn't send a 15 yr old to Afghanistan today.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Girls don't reach puberty at 8 or 9 now. In most cases anyway. My grandaddy went to fight in WW2 when he was 15 too, but I wouldn't send a 15 yr old to Afghanistan today.



I wouldn't send my 34 year old to Afghanistan today.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> I wouldn't send my 34 year old to Afghanistan today.



Ha ha....me either


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's the biggest one for most of us. Without a victim most of us non-believers fall into a default, "Well, I wouldn't do it, but that's not my monkey and not my circus," live and let live mentality.



I appreciate your honest answer and the civility of this conversation.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I appreciate your honest answer and the *civility of this conversation*.



Me too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's the biggest one for most of us. Without a victim most of us non-believers fall into a default, "Well, I wouldn't do it, but that's not my monkey and not my circus," live and let live mentality.


I agree.
Although I might add someone just declaring themselves victimized does not constitute a victim to me.
Gay marriage cause you to be a victim of heartburn?
Take a Rolaids and get over yourself.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree.
> Although I might add someone just declaring themselves victimized does not constitute a victim to me.
> Gay marriage cause you to be a victim of heartburn?
> Take a Rolaids and get over yourself.



I'll only think I'm a victim if they ask me to perform their marriage ceremony and sue me when I refuse.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I'll only think I'm a victim if they ask me to perform their marriage ceremony and sue me when I refuse.


I think I'm on your side on that one.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I think I'm on your side on that one.



I appreciate that, and thought you probably were.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like your blaming all for the talk of a few.


Context.


About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.  
I was assigned "special coaching" which consisted of a 15 minute video on "Tolerance in the workplace". 

In the meeting, I found out that we are a "family" and I lack understanding of their background. They are "good people" and I should not be offended by mere words.

My response(perceived threat) was, "Fine, but will you be understanding when the "good people" of Westboro Baptist Church bring their mere words to our sidewalk?" 

A few days after the meeting, a co-worker(Hispanic lesbian) approached me and asked if I was a member of Westboro.  I told her that I am not and she said that it is a rumor that she didn't believe and that I should watch my back.

See how it is working out?

Onward to "write up" #2. 
This past Saturday, I noticed that there was a 2 hour hole in Sunday's schedule. I asked the scheduling supervisor(white homosexual male) if he wanted me to shift my schedule by two hours to cover the department. He said, "That would be great, thank you". 

On Monday, I am notified of a "late in" "write up". I went to the Asst. Manager(white lesbian) and explained why the shift in my schedule. Her reply? "It wasn't documented. There is nothing that I can do". 

Part of me is determined to stick around and see just how they achieve "write up" #3(termination of the intolerant, white heterosexual male who makes threats).


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Context.
> 
> 
> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.
> ...



Where is the world do you work! Don't answer that  

That's a lot of alternative lifestyle in one place


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Context.
> 
> 
> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.
> ...


Although your Westboro Baptist point was legitimate, it probably wasn't too smart.
It's akin to the priest sprinkling Holy water on that chick in the Exorcist


----------



## welderguy (Apr 15, 2016)

Gem
Im praying for you brother.Be encouraged in this:

1 Peter 4:14

14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

The world knows nothing of that glory.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Context.
> 
> 
> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.
> ...



Man, that stinks. Good luck, I'm pulling for ya. 

I am curious though, exactly where you work to have that many multi-minorities.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Context.
> 
> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.
> I was assigned "special coaching" which consisted of a 15 minute video on "Tolerance in the workplace".


 I think I am missing something. Why did you meet with HR and the manager again? Did you meet to explain that filthy talk offended you, or only gay filthy talk offended you? Or, did you get called in for something you said?



> In the meeting, I found out that we are a "family" and I lack understanding of their background. They are "good people" and I should not be offended by mere words.


 Wasn't your threat mere words?



> My response(perceived threat) was, "Fine, but will you be understanding when the "good people" of Westboro Baptist Church bring their mere words to our sidewalk?"


 Yea. That was a threat. They are a perceptive people.  Was this during the meeting or the reason for the meeting.



> A few days after the meeting, a co-worker(Hispanic lesbian) approached me and asked if I was a member of Westboro.  I told her that I am not and she said that it is a rumor that she didn't believe and that I should watch my back.


 Did you tell her with all these gays running around, of course I have to watch my back? 



> See how it is working out?


 Not good but still think I am missing something. 



> Onward to "write up" #2.
> This past Saturday, I noticed that there was a 2 hour hole in Sunday's schedule. I asked the scheduling supervisor(white homosexual male) if he wanted me to shift my schedule by two hours to cover the department. He said, "That would be great, thank you".
> 
> On Monday, I am notified of a "late in" "write up". I went to the Asst. Manager(white lesbian) and explained why the shift in my schedule. Her reply? "It wasn't documented. There is nothing that I can do".


 Is there something the scheduling supervisor can do? Who was responsible for documenting the change? Not you? Find out who and throw them under the bus.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR ...



I prefer Orwell's term for HR:  "thought police".


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> I was assigned "special coaching" which consisted of a 15 minute video on "Tolerance in the workplace".



We have always been at war with Eastasia.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Context.
> 
> 
> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.
> ...


I know you and I do not seem to agree on much, but in this instance with the information  you have shared, I can certainly see why you feel the way you do and under those circumstances I doubt I would have done anything differently.

The world is loaded with people of all preferences, types, races, colors, cultures,  ethnicity and beliefs, unfortunately for all that can get along there are a handful that just cannot or will not. You seem to be in a situation where it is against your best interest to be there in that environment.  You should not have to be subjected to a work place like that and only you know your limits on what or how much you can take or more importantly are willing to put up with.
I wish you the best in whichever route you choose to take.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Context.
> 
> 
> About 3 weeks ago, I met with HR(black lesbian) and Manager(black bi-sexual female). It went great. I was "written up" for making a threat.
> ...



Don't want to derail the thread, but I just saw this article and thought it was on point:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434036/progressive-corporate-politics-conservative-response


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2016)

I thought some of you might appreciate a little Christian satirical humor  

http://babylonbee.com/news/lgbt-advocacy-group-launches-center-advanced-ad-hominems/


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> I think I am missing something. Why did you meet with HR and the manager again? Did you meet to explain that filthy talk offended you, or only gay filthy talk offended you? Or, did you get called in for something you said?


You didn't miss it. The details would require a book to be written. My dept. supervisor asked me to approach management regarding the division within our workplace.  He knows that I hold a unique position, in that I am a friend to both divided parts. He also knows that I do not have to or need to work there. He is married and with a new baby.

I requested the meeting. I wish that I had recorded it so that you could understand what took place. It is more than filthy talk, it also involves actions. There are reasons why it is well known that one better knock before entering the janitor's supply room. 

Every point that I brought up for consideration was turned back to me. I was the problem. I was the intolerant, inconsiderate and judgemental one. 

I understand that. 

I am the opposition.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 15, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> There are reasons why it is well known that one better knock before entering the janitor's supply room.



Nothing says "romance" like the janitor's supply room.


----------



## Baroque Brass (Apr 15, 2016)

Wow. Glad I'm self employed.


----------



## Lukikus2 (Apr 15, 2016)

"A idle mind is the devils workshop"


----------



## welderguy (Apr 16, 2016)

Lukikus2 said:


> "A idle mind is the devils workshop"



Depends on what it's idle from...(worldly things or Godly things)

"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace,whose mind is stayed on Thee:because he trusteth in Thee."


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 16, 2016)

Lukikus2 said:


> "A idle mind is the devils workshop"



What is this in reference to?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 16, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> You didn't miss it. The details would require a book to be written. My dept. supervisor asked me to approach management regarding the division within our workplace.  He knows that I hold a unique position, in that I am a friend to both divided parts. He also knows that I do not have to or need to work there. He is married and with a new baby.
> 
> I requested the meeting. I wish that I had recorded it so that you could understand what took place. It is more than filthy talk, it also involves actions. There are reasons why it is well known that one better knock before entering the janitor's supply room.
> 
> ...



I wonder if your hostile work place has made you biased toward all gays based on your interactions with hostile gays?
Maybe they are hostile after having to live with discrimination for a long time previous. 
The blacks were accused of being hostile in the Sixties when they tried to gain equal rights. Women were considered hostile as they gained equal rights.

I wonder if you met some gay Christians such as within the Episcopal Church or maybe some Universal Universalists Homosexuals.
Maybe those you work with are Pagan Homosexuals. It could be they see your Christian view of homosexuality as a threat and therefore both you and them are on the defense.
Go after some fat Christian co-workers for a week or two to make them see that you reject all sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 16, 2016)

Now if they are in fact totally depraved reprobate homosexuals, they will either always be that way or God will elect them and the Holy Spirit will change the fruits. The fruits of their ways.

So perhaps they have an excuse. People who know God and exchange the truth for a lie, have no excuse. People who exchange hetero sex for gay sex after exchanging worshiping God for that of idols are without excuse.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 16, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if your hostile work place has made you biased toward all gays based on your interactions with hostile gays?
> Maybe they are hostile after having to live with discrimination for a long time previous.
> The blacks were accused of being hostile in the Sixties when they tried to gain equal rights. Women were considered hostile as they gained equal rights.
> 
> ...


I wonder if I work with you.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 17, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> I wonder if I work with you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 17, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> I wonder if I work with you.



I've never been west of the Mississippi River. My hostile workplace peoples are usually  ethnic or sexual gender related. Plenty of them have an axe to grind.
My gay co-workers are meek and humble. Perhaps they are Episcopalian or Universalists.

They haven't made any exchanges from God to that of Idols. They haven't exchanged the truth for a lie.
They haven't stopped having hetero sex for gay sex. 

I do work with a lot of gluttons and fornicators. They don't cause any workplace trouble other than burping & boasting.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 17, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do work with a lot of gluttons and fornicators.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 17, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've never been west of the Mississippi River. My hostile workplace peoples are usually  ethnic or sexual gender related. Plenty of them have an axe to grind.


You do not even have to leave Augusta in order to work with me.



Artfuldodger said:


> My gay co-workers are meek and humble. Perhaps they are Episcopalian or Universalists.
> 
> They haven't made any exchanges from God to that of Idols. They haven't exchanged the truth for a lie.
> They haven't stopped having hetero sex for gay sex.


It sounds as if you have very intimate knowledge of them. How is it that you do not know as to whether or not they are Episcopalian?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 18, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I appreciate your honest answer and the civility of this conversation.



No worries.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 18, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> He also knows that I do not have to or need to work there.



Well, there ya go. Problem solved.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 18, 2016)

660griz said:


> Well, there ya go. Problem solved.


Yes, but only in regard to the first thought("stop hurting me"). I am working through the second thought("I am selfish").


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 18, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> You do not even have to leave Augusta in order to work with me.
> 
> 
> It sounds as if you have very intimate knowledge of them. How is it that you do not know as to whether or not they are Episcopalian?



The only knowledge I have of the group in Rome comes from Romans 1. That group knew God and exchanged the truth for a lie.

Presently if I were a gay Christian, I'd probably be Episcopalian. Perhaps a Gay Affirming Freewill Baptist or a  Primitive Baptist Universalists.


----------

