Oklahoma to Limit Same Sex Adoption

[Kannap]

So where in the New Testament does Jesus say homosexuality is wrong?

In the Old Testament about Lot.

Jesus said homosexuality is wrong in the Old Testament?

Now, I've read enough of the Bible and studied enough of it to know something is a bit off here.

[The Free Joy State]

Respectable is a very relative term. ISIS is seen as extremely respectable by ISIS members.

And what I described was called good parenting just one generation ago. And it still exists in the form of conversion therapy to name just one thing. And is practiced by organizations that are seen by those willingly signing up for them as very respectable.

I have a friend - turns 21 this year - who was beat by teachers at her Lutheran school as a kid because she was left handed. She's ambidextrous now, but not for good reasons.

That's terrible.

It used to happen a lot, decades ago (I think, because the Latin for "left" was "sinistra" which eventually came to mean "evil"), but I didn't know it still happened.

It is found vaccines cause autism, though.

Short sidebar to remind people to vaccinate their children.

Yep, Wakefield's "study" was used when I was used in university as a textbook example of bad science.

Vaccines are important.

In the Old Testament about Lot.

Jesus said homosexuality is wrong in the Old Testament?

Now, I've read enough of the Bible and studied enough of it to know something is a bit off here.

It must be the Time-Travelling Christ, the one who lives to condemn gay people and exists in the minds of some religious conservatives.

[Kannap]

If you're using "abomination" rhetoric, shellfish is quite clearly described as an "abomination" (Leviticus 11:12), so is four-legged fowl (Leviticus 11:20), anything that crawls on its belly (Leviticus 11:42), and a woman wearing that which pertaineth unto a man (so trousers) (Deuteronomy 22:5).

You can't say: "No, homosexuality is still an abomination, but these other things described as abominations aren't."

Or... you could just accept that Jesus came as the fulfilment of the law ((Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25), and that the Old Testament law doesn't apply.

Let's face it, Jesus was resoundingly silent on people being gay.

P.S. Sorry for the excessive scripture, people.

The Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem specifies which parts of the Law were fulfilled and which are still to be held to in our personal lives. Moreover, the Apostles condemned homosexuality explicitly.

I can't marry Thomas but Bob and Linda can get a divorce because Linda got fat, even though adultery is the only 'correct' reason for divorce? Yeah, okay.

[Vassenor]

Here's the thing though: What makes this version of Christian morality so vitally important that the whole world has to bend over backwards to accommodate it?

[Thermodolia]

This actually might already be unconstitutional, as SCOTUS has already ruled that same sex adoption is legal. Attempting to restrict it is going to cause it to declared illegal

[Thermodolia]

If you're using "abomination" rhetoric, shellfish is quite clearly described as an "abomination" (Leviticus 11:12), so is four-legged fowl (Leviticus 11:20), anything that crawls on its belly (Leviticus 11:42), and a woman wearing that which pertaineth unto a man (so trousers) (Deuteronomy 22:5).

You can't say: "No, homosexuality is still an abomination, but these other things described as abominations aren't."

Or... you could just accept that Jesus came as the fulfilment of the law ((Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25), and that the Old Testament law doesn't apply.

Let's face it, Jesus was resoundingly silent on people being gay.

P.S. Sorry for the excessive scripture, people.

The Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem specifies which parts of the Law were fulfilled and which are still to be held to in our personal lives. Moreover, the Apostles condemned homosexuality explicitly.

Ok cool now point out where it says that in the constitution

[The Free Joy State]

Here's the thing though: What makes this version of Christian morality so vitally important that the whole world has to bend over backwards to accommodate it?

As a Christian myself... *shrug* Dunno

- It can't be "we got here first", because they didn't
- It can't be "we have the unarguable truth, and nothing but the truth, so all must bow down" (good luck arguing that with every other faith in the world)
- It can't be "without conservative Christianity there are no morals", because there are many moral atheists and some conservative Christian priests who do completely amoral things.

I think it's that much of the Western world has historically taken many laws from theology and that Churches still have an inordinate amount of influence in many places. Way more than they should.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem specifies which parts of the Law were fulfilled and which are still to be held to in our personal lives. Moreover, the Apostles condemned homosexuality explicitly.

I can't marry Thomas but Bob and Linda can get a divorce because Linda got fat, even though adultery is the only 'correct' reason for divorce? Yeah, okay.

That depends what church you go to, in more traditional churches, they can't.

[United Muscovite Nations]

This actually might already be unconstitutional, as SCOTUS has already ruled that same sex adoption is legal. Attempting to restrict it is going to cause it to declared illegal

They're not restricting anything, they're saying that religious institutions can refuse service based on religion.

[Vassenor]

This actually might already be unconstitutional, as SCOTUS has already ruled that same sex adoption is legal. Attempting to restrict it is going to cause it to declared illegal

SCOTUS has also declared bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, but some states are still trying to force them through.

[The Free Joy State]

This actually might already be unconstitutional, as SCOTUS has already ruled that same sex adoption is legal. Attempting to restrict it is going to cause it to declared illegal

They're not restricting anything, they're saying that religious institutions can refuse service based on religion.

Not an American and so no expert, but I think you just advocated violating the 14th Amendment.

Can anyone confirm?

EDIT: And since when can gay couples not be religious?

[Vassenor]

They're not restricting anything, they're saying that religious institutions can refuse service based on religion.

Not an American and so no expert, but I think you just advocated violating the 14th Amendment.

Can anyone confirm?

First and fourteenth.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They're not restricting anything, they're saying that religious institutions can refuse service based on religion.

Not an American and so no expert, but I think you just advocated violating the 14th Amendment.

Can anyone confirm?

The 14th Amendment restricts what the state can do, it doesn't restrict anything religious organizations do.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not an American and so no expert, but I think you just advocated violating the 14th Amendment.

Can anyone confirm?

First and fourteenth.

It doesn't violate either, as religious institutions are already free to refuse service for any reason, they aren't public accommodations, they are private clubs.

[Vassenor]

Not an American and so no expert, but I think you just advocated violating the 14th Amendment.

Can anyone confirm?

The 14th Amendment restricts what the state can do, it doesn't restrict anything religious organizations do.

So how does this not constitute denial of equal protection of the law?

[Vassenor]

First and fourteenth.

It doesn't violate either, as religious institutions are already free to refuse service for any reason, they aren't public accommodations, they are private clubs.

So how does saying "religious groups have the special right to do this that other people do not" not constitute making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The 14th Amendment restricts what the state can do, it doesn't restrict anything religious organizations do.

So how does this not constitute denial of equal protection of the law?

Because religious orphanages aren't run by the government and aren't public accommodations.

[The Free Joy State]

First and fourteenth.

It doesn't violate either, as religious institutions are already free to refuse service for any reason, they aren't public accommodations, they are private clubs.

If you want religions to be classed as private clubs, exempt from the rule of law (and closer in nature to a private business), you should be willing for religions to lose tax exempt status?

Tax exemption is, after all, for organisations serving the public good.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't violate either, as religious institutions are already free to refuse service for any reason, they aren't public accommodations, they are private clubs.

So how does saying "religious groups have the special right to do this that other people do not" not constitute making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?

It's not giving them a special right, it's just clarifying anti-discrimination statutes, which already make it clear that religious institutions aren't bound by them.

[Arlenton]

Not a fan of this.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't violate either, as religious institutions are already free to refuse service for any reason, they aren't public accommodations, they are private clubs.

If you want religions to be classed as private clubs, exempt from the rule of law (and closer in nature to a private business), you should be willing for religions to lose tax exempt status?

Tax exemption is, after all, for organisations serving the public good.

Private clubs are less like private businesses. Private businesses are required to serve anyone because they are public accommodations. The difference is that private clubs have restricted membership and can discriminate based on that basis. For example, the government can't force the Catholic Church to marry anyone, because the Catholic Church can discriminate on the basis that it has a private membership rather than being a business open to the public.

[The Free Joy State]

If you want religions to be classed as private clubs, exempt from the rule of law (and closer in nature to a private business), you should be willing for religions to lose tax exempt status?

Tax exemption is, after all, for organisations serving the public good.

Private clubs are less like private businesses. Private businesses are required to serve anyone because they are public accommodations. The difference is that private clubs have restricted membership and can discriminate based on that basis. For example, the government can't force the Catholic Church to marry anyone, because the Catholic Church can discriminate on the basis that it has a private membership rather than being a business open to the public.

My point stands just as well: if it discriminates, it is not serving the public good. It should either serve the public good and obey laws at national level, or be willing to "make a stand" and lose tax exemption.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Private clubs are less like private businesses. Private businesses are required to serve anyone because they are public accommodations. The difference is that private clubs have restricted membership and can discriminate based on that basis. For example, the government can't force the Catholic Church to marry anyone, because the Catholic Church can discriminate on the basis that it has a private membership rather than being a business open to the public.

My point stands just as well: if it discriminates, it is not serving the public good. It should either serve the public good and obey laws at national level, or be willing to "make a stand" and lose tax exemption.

It is obeying the law, the anti-discrimination statutes exempt private clubs.

Also, religious institutions are tax exempt because they provide something that tangibly benefits the government, namely, spirituality (which has been proven to have positive effects on depression); for the same reason, many sporting events are tax exempt because they provide something that benefits the government: entertainment for its citizens.

[Neutraligon]

So how does saying "religious groups have the special right to do this that other people do not" not constitute making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?

It's not giving them a special right, it's just clarifying anti-discrimination statutes, which already make it clear that religious institutions aren't bound by them.

Adoption however is a public service.

[Neutraligon]

My point stands just as well: if it discriminates, it is not serving the public good. It should either serve the public good and obey laws at national level, or be willing to "make a stand" and lose tax exemption.

It is obeying the law, the anti-discrimination statutes exempt private clubs.

Churches are legally not private clubs.