First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch

[Lando Lincoln]

You might be right. Politics is enough of a powder keg.

Amen!  (Okay, that was bad...)

[DiogenesLamp]

" And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Mark 10:11-12

You're going to pit the New Testament against the Old?   How does that work?   The old Testament is full of the sturm and drang,  while the New Testament is the "kinder gentler"  version.   


So you are going to take the gentler Testament that doesn't deal much with killing and death,   and try to apply it's precepts to the old?   


If you are looking for contradictions,   I can point out better ones than that. 

I don't see the room for dispute there.

For example?

What you are doing is a bait and switch.   You have to apply the rules from the same sources,  not mix and match to achieve the assertion you want to make.   The Torah grants divorce.   


Even so,  your argument is just a convoluted form of "tu quque".   It doesn't matter if divorce is bad or not,   it doesn't make some other bad thing "good."   Let's say for the sake of argument that divorce is bad.    Now what?   Does that mean all the other bad things like incest and beastiality are now good?   


No it does not. 

[DiogenesLamp]

This is the channel that I've been watching for years channel. You show up a minute ago and decide to change the programming.

Having a hard time grasping the metaphor?   This "Channel" (meaning this message thread)  didn't start broadcasting until a couple of days ago.    The selection of channels  (consisting of all the other message threads)  is quite large,   and you do not have to watch this one if you do not like it.   

What you are saying is that you don't want this particular channel anywhere on the entire cable system.   You are wanting to let your inner totalitarian shine through. 

Look I get it... you don't like gays.

If you "got it"   you wouldn't have said that.   I have made no expressions of dislike about gays,   I have simply stated that they are not appropriate in our armed forces,  and that there is a very ugly dark side to them of which most people remain blissfully unaware.   


Didn't say anything at all about liking them or not.   I could say quite a lot of good things about famous gays such as Oscar Wilde,   Tchaikovsky, (love me some Tchaikovsky)  or even Paul Lynde.   You just expressed your own example of prejudiced.   You have already pre-judged me,  and launched into your little tirade as a result of your own prejudice. 

I'm pretty sure that they don't like you either, and it's safe to say that they also couldn't care less about your opinion of their behavior.

Just as you don't care for theirs.

But, it means absolutely nothing what you each think about one another, because in this country, it's OK for them to be gay and for you to be a knuckle-dragging hate-filled rabid Fred Phelps clone.

There's that prejudice again.   If someone disagrees with you they must be a neanderthal hate monger or something.   Are we sure this is a conservative website?   I thought all that emotional name calling stuff was the domain of emotional Liberals.   

I suggest that you go find a nice shady spot somewhere in Fire Island, and hold up signs about the impending doom of all gay people. They'll take issue with your posters and you guys can work out your differences there while leaving the rest of us alone to enjoy discussing the evils of Donald Trump with a heavy side of no Leviticus quotes.

Oh,  and for what it's worth,  "Leviticus"  started at post 152.   You might want to go take a look at it.   My citations of it were in response.   I did not initiate it. 


Of course you are going to throw a great deal of opprobrium on the perpetrator of message 152,  because you've made it clear regarding your objection to bible quotes on this forum.   

Make sure you jump on them with both feet,  because after all,  you certainly want to be seen as an fair and equitable in your criticism of others regarding their usage of bible quotes.  Right? 

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no Religion forum in TBR, and that is by deliberate design.

Well tell me than Herr Oberführer,   what other topics are verboten? 

[Dexter]

There's that prejudice again.

The irony, it hurts.

[DiogenesLamp]

This reminds me of what one of my professors once referred to as the "Kings of England" response to an essay question.  Listing all the Kings of England just to have something to fill up the page for an essay question for which you have no answer.  In other words, none of that explains why you'd bring up women having the right to vote as a bad idea.

I wasn't explaining why letting women have the right to vote is a bad idea,   I was explaining that from my perspective,  the topic is linked to this one,   and that to show the linkage would take a bit.  That is why I used a metaphor.   I was only trying  to convey that I saw the two subjects as linked in the greater mosaic of culture/demographics.   



My personal preference is that we should make the voting franchise based on Taxes and/or Service.   If you pay taxes or you have served in the military,   I think you should get the vote,  whether you be male,  female or some other non discernible form of a sentient being.   

This current system where non taxpayers can vote is a positive feedback mechanism for destruction.   Unfortunately I think it's too late to do anything about it,   but if i'm around when the next country starts,   i'm going to urge them to not allow non-taxpayers to vote.   It utterly destroys fiscal discipline. 

  And likewise, pointing out that Leviticus demands the death of homosexuals also seems needlessly antagonistic since you're not even advocating that happen. 

I didn't bring up Leviticus.   I responded to someone who did.  I pointed out they left out some stuff. 
One of my pet peeves is when people make a partial quote of something and claim it supports their position,  when in fact the full quote reveals that it does not.   

I had this exact same issue with someone quoting John Bingham (author of the 14th amendment)  while leaving out the thing he said in that  same paragraph which absolutely contradicted their point.   

No argument there.  Although here, we are all presumably more on the friendly side than the "it's fun just to piss them off" side.  Just my two cents -- I just don't see this particular line as being productive for anyone involved.

Some of this is a bit of "trolling",   and some of it is intended to be a serious discussion of an issue that has become anathema for public discussion.   

We have exactly the same situation regarding Muslims,  Race,  Feminism,  and Global Warming.   

There is an ugly truth on these issues that people simply do not wish to hear,   but really should.   

Just looking for an "honest man"  here boss.  :) 

[mirraflake]

   I have made no expressions of dislike about gays, 

Other than you mentioning they are disease ridden, child molesting, Orgy luvin, mental illness carrying, suicidal sodomites who God destroyed at S&G for their wickedness and no known civilization has tolerated gays throughout history and survived and those civilizations were correct and they should not be in the US military and one day Islam is going to kill off the bleep in the final battle.. Yep, you don't dislike gays..


Excuse me if I left out a few quips from DL.  You are  a hoot DL.  You brighten my day. SRS.

@Dexter @RedHead   @Louis Gonzales

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm with you Luis.

I've been here since the first hours of inception and I am happy to say we have never "descended" into arguments over whose religious views will best gain us salvation.  I am happy for that.  Nothing will change the tenor of this place faster than "I know God better than you know God."

I will stick with my own brand of Faith.

That wasn't the discussion,  and if you had read it from the beginning instead of jumping into the middle,   you would have realized that.   


I have no advice to anyone regarding salvation,   and I lean more to the Jewish perspective of trying to make the world a better place while you are on it.   


I'm not going to give anyone advice on faith.  My position is "kill them all and let God sort it out."  :)   

[aleksandrsig]

Thank you for mentioning my blog, DiogenesLamp. I am here to clarify all the points:

Basically Torah (The Law of the Living One God) absolutely prohibits all sexually perverted acts. Not just homosexuality.

In the 7th Commandment (Exodus 20:14), the word tinaph means "sexual perversion" and not just traditional "adultery" (which is a mistranslation).
Lo Tinaph of the 7th Commandments should be translated as "not thou shall commit sexual perversion" or "not thou shall commit sexual immorality". I like the former more because it seems to be more general.

Secondly, the whole issue with homosexuality is very simple.

Homosexual ORIENTATION is ok! It is ok to be born gay. This is nature and there is nothing you can do.

What is NOT Ok is to ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR !!!

Being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior are two different things.

Why do we allow homosexuals to engage in sexually perverted acts, while prohibiting the same for heterosexuals (i.e prostitution).

For example, I do not have a wife, so if I go and hire myself a prostitute to relief the stress, I would be arrested under US law. Yet, when two homosexuals engage in the sexually perverted act, we allow them that. This is what I can't understand! And I hope now that I've told you, neither can you!

Thoughts?

[Dexter]

Homosexual ORIENTATION is ok! It is ok to be born gay. This is nature and there is nothing you can do.

What is NOT Ok is to ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR !!!

Oh, so all they have to do is suppress their natural urges until the day they die. Sounds simple and healthy.

Why do we allow homosexuals to engage in sexually perverted acts, while prohibiting the same for heterosexuals (i.e prostitution).

For example, I do not have a wife, so if I go and hire myself a prostitute to relief the stress, I would be arrested under US law. Yet, when two homosexuals engage in the sexually perverted act, we allow them that. This is what I can't understand! And I hope now that I've told you, neither can you!

Thoughts?

What's against the law is paying for sex, not perverted sexual acts. That comparison doesn't work.

[RedHead]

You're going to pit the New Testament against the Old?   How does that work?   The old Testament is full of the sturm and drang,  while the New Testament is the "kinder gentler"  version.   

The New Testament contains the teachings of Jesus Christ.  But hey!  What did he know?

The New Testament is also where Jesus defined marriage as a life long commitment between a man and a woman.  You seem to agree with at least half of that definition.

So you are going to take the gentler Testament that doesn't deal much with killing and death,   and try to apply it's precepts to the old?   

I'm taking the teachings of my Lord and Savior and applying it to today.  I'm not sure what the heck you are doing.

What you are doing is a bait and switch.   You have to apply the rules from the same sources,  not mix and match to achieve the assertion you want to make.   The Torah grants divorce.   

Which would be fine if I were Jewish.  As a Christian I follow the Bible, and Jesus made it clear that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.  Anything else is, at best, not a marriage or, at worse, an adulterous relationship.

Even so,  your argument is just a convoluted form of "tu quque".   It doesn't matter if divorce is bad or not,   it doesn't make some other bad thing "good."   Let's say for the sake of argument that divorce is bad.    Now what?   Does that mean all the other bad things like incest and beastiality are now good? 

No it does not.

What it means that if Bible defines two acts as an abomination then what gives you the authority to declare that it really didn't mean it for one but it did for the other?

[DiogenesLamp]

Other than you mentioning they are disease ridden, child molesting, mental illness carrying, suicidal sodomites who God destroyed at S&G for their wickedness and no known civilization has tolerated gays throughout history and survived and those civilizations were correct and they should not be in the US military and one day Islam is going to kill off the bleep in the final battle.. Yep, you don't dislike gays..

So?   Benjamin Franklin was a drunk and a whoremonger,  and Jefferson apparently liked poking his women slaves.   Genghis Khan appears to have fathered half of Mongolia,   and  Alexander the Great was probably into little boys.   Colonel Sanders could drink and swear and cuss with the best of them,  and he once shot a man.    Churchill drank constantly.   Mark Twain was a drunk.   


I like rogues just fine.   There is a lot to admire in a sufficiently talented rogue.   

[Lando Lincoln]

So?   Benjamin Franklin was a drunk and a whoremonger,  and Jefferson apparently liked poking his women slaves.   Genghis Khan appears to have fathered half of Mongolia,   and  Alexander the Great was probably into little boys.   Colonel Sanders could drink and swear and cuss with the best of them,  and he once shot a man.    Churchill drank constantly.   Mark Twain was a drunk.   


I like rogues just fine.   There is a lot to admire in a sufficiently talented rogue.

I like that!  Especially how Colonel Sanders somehow wrangled his way in there.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for mentioning my blog, DiogenesLamp. I am here to clarify all the points:

Basically Torah (The Law of the Living One God) absolutely prohibits all sexually perverted acts. Not just homosexuality.

In the 7th Commandment (Exodus 20:14), the word tinaph means "sexual perversion" and not just traditional "adultery" (which is a mistranslation).
Lo Tinaph of the 7th Commandments should be translated as "not thou shall commit sexual perversion" or "not thou shall commit sexual immorality". I like the former more because it seems to be more general.

Secondly, the whole issue with homosexuality is very simple.

Homosexual ORIENTATION is ok! It is ok to be born gay. This is nature and there is nothing you can do.

What is NOT Ok is to ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR !!!

Being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior are two different things.

Why do we allow homosexuals to engage in sexually perverted acts, while prohibiting the same for heterosexuals (i.e prostitution).

For example, I do not have a wife, so if I go and hire myself a prostitute to relief the stress, I would be arrested under US law. Yet, when two homosexuals engage in the sexually perverted act, we allow them that. This is what I can't understand! And I hope now that I've told you, neither can you!

Thoughts?

Thank you for your input and your expertise.  I endeavor to understand things accurately,   and it has long been my understanding that the Ten Commandants were not accurately translated into English.   


Whenever I try to understand something,   I try to find it's oldest roots,   and see if any insight can be gleaned in the context of the times in which it is written.   


It is also my understanding that the "Thou shalt not Kill"   commandment is another mistranslation,   and that the accurate meaning is "Thou shalt not murder."   


It is a shame that so many people have been misled over these distinctions,   because they really do make a difference in many cases with which people are confronted from to time.   


Once again,   thank you for offering clarity on this point. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm taking the teachings of my Lord and Savior and applying it to today.  I'm not sure what the heck you are doing.

Which would be fine if I were Jewish.  As a Christian I follow the Bible, and Jesus made it clear that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.  Anything else is, at best, not a marriage or, at worse, an adulterous relationship.

Well if you can find anything in the New Testament that says adulterers should be killed,   then I will concede the point to you.   :) 

[DiogenesLamp]

I like that!  Especially how Colonel Sanders somehow wrangled his way in there.

I just read about him last week.   There is a lot of stuff I didn't know about Colonel Sanders.   He was a *LOT*  more of a rogue than most people know,   and he had a very hot temper and mean streak. 


Everyone loves a good rogue!   

[Roscoe Proudfoot]

@Repub4Trump

I want no part of this place. Please delete my account.

[Dexter]

@Repub4Trump

I want no part of this place. Please delete my account.

Coulda sent a PM rather than try to incite drama.

[txradioguy]

The New Testament contains the teachings of Jesus Christ.  But hey!  What did he know?

He knew enough to tell his Disciples to obey the teachings of the Old Testament.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. " - Matthew 5:17

[mountaineer]

In case any of our newer posters wondered why TBR doesn't have a religion forum ... and why the owners ask that we stay on topic.

[txradioguy]

Gay people cannot help but be gay.

Bull.  It's a sexual choice.  There's no gay "gene" that someone is born with.

[RedHead]

He knew enough to tell his Disciples to obey the teachings of the Old Testament.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. " - Matthew 5:17

I'd say that He then proceeded to change things big time.

[LonestarDream]

How will our permissiveness affect the health and well being of our children and grandchildren? 

You label it fear and loathing as a dishonest method to win the argument with an ad hominem.  It is not about love hate or fear.  It is about truth and error, right and wrong, fact and fiction.   It is about a society that is built on Judeo-Christian ethics and self-evident truths.  Homosexuality is not and never can be equal to heterosexuality.  That is true whether you see it as moral or immoral.  But it is immoral.  It is already harming our religious freedoms.  It is already being peddled to our young people as though it is a right and moral choice they can make, or worse MUST make, as though they must seek and find whether they were "born that way" when HELLO....basic anatomy proves they were not.   They may not remember when they did not desire it, but then they may not remember when they were not selfish or greedy.  Desire does not make a behavior automatically moral.

It is a vile practice that degrades the individual as well as the whole of society.  So congratulations.  You own it.

[RedHead]

Bull.  It's a sexual choice.  There's no gay "gene" that someone is born with.

You know that, huh?

[txradioguy]

You know that, huh?

Please...by all means...if you know something the rest of the world doesn't...don't hesitate to share.


ETA:  Seems some scientists are pretty sure I'm right.

The twin study conducted at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, finds that homosexuality may be triggered by environmental factors after birth. The research uses an algorithm covering epigenetic markers from several genomic sites of 37 sets of identical male twins to predict homosexuality in males, with 70 percent accuracy, as presented at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/445/study-no-theres-no-evidence-gay-gene-pardes-seleh