Father kills gay son

[TemplarKormac]

But I have wasted enough time on this thread debating with someone so obtuse *cough* Syrius *cough*. And in general. I am issuing no further responses.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When did we become Iran? Religion is based on myth.

And as for your trolling, I will not lend such a statement any credence. Good night.

 

[Katzndogz]

What ever Kim Davis did she did before she became a Christian. What did she do after she became a Christian? How many marriages?

 

[Dhara]

North Hills Father Charged With Murder for Allegedly Shooting Son Because He Was Gay

From the names it looks like this is a muslim family.

The son was probably being obnoxious and badgering his father demanding dad meet his demands. The old man couldn't take it any more.

Many Right Wingers would agree with you that the father had every right to kill his son.

Many left wingers as well ..

Not likely.

 

[Esmeralda]

What ever Kim Davis did she did before she became a Christian. What did she do after she became a Christian? How many marriages?

So, if I murder someone (or many people) before I become a Christian and then don't murder anyone after I become a Christian, it's all cool? All is forgiven and forgotten? It's like those murders never happened? How cool.

 

[Dhara]

I'd be more inclined to hunt down and murder my kid's grade school teachers who told him it was a viable "lifestyle" instead of a mental illness.

Then again you are just inclined to look for an excuse to kill homosexuals.

Or anyone else.

 

[Dhara]

What ever Kim Davis did she did before she became a Christian. What did she do after she became a Christian? How many marriages?

So, if I murder someone (or many people) before I become a Christian and then don't murder anyone after I become a Christian, it's all cool? All is forgiven and forgotten? It's like those murders never happened? How cool.

Way different for Buddhists.

 

[Skylar]

But when gays want to marry, something that isn't even mentioned in the Bible

Ahh I was hoping not to go here, but alas we are here.

1) Each and every time the Bible mentions marriage, it is between one man, and one woman, through instruction or example.

A bible scholar you're not.

"If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish"

Exodus 21:10

So 'each and every time'....except that time. Or this one:

If a man has two wives,and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love

Deuteronomy 21:15-16

So 'each and 'every time'....except those two times. And this one.

With Moses had at least 2 wives. Zipporah (Exodus 2: 21) and the Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1). And before you try to argue that Ziporah was the Cushite....Numbers 10: 29 makes it ludicrously clear that Moses' father law was a Midianite. Making Zipporah a Midianite.

So 'each and every time'....except those three times. Oh, and then there's this one.

When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Gen 26:34

So 'each and every time'....except those four times.

Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite: 2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children

1 Samuel 1-2

So 'each and every time'.....except those five times. Oh, and these 700 other examples:

And [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

1 Kings 11: 1-3

So 'each and every time'.....except those 705 times.

Perhaps 'each and every time' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Man and woman, man and woman. If it allowed for same sex marriage, don't you think it would have issued instructions for them as well on how to be gay and how not to be gay, or what not to do if you are gay? It would be contradictory to issue instructions on traditional marriage, and then give instructions on something that it would find adulterous and sexually immoral.

There's a big reason why it doesn't mention homosexual marriage. It specifically addresses the interactions between men and women in the proper way to maintain a heterosexual marriage. Genesis 2:24 mentions marriage as a man leaving home and family to unite with his wife. Right there, from the very beginning. Man and woman. And the coup de grace is 1 Corinthians 7:2 "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Note the usage of the nouns "his" and "her." What is meant by "sexual immorality?" See my second point.

2) Excluding the "you will be put to death" part in Leviticus 18:22, God made his will and position on homosexuality clear. They commit an abomination. He does not condone it. In Malachi 3:6, God says, "I the LORD do not change", therefore his position on same sex marriage never changed either, even in the New Testament, even after he renewed the covenant with Israel. God's will is eternal, and it doesn't cease to be in that blank space in the Bible between Old Testament and New. As a Christian, I consider these points non debatable. I have gone over it many times before. I have debated it plenty of times before, I have also tried looking at it from your vantage point. But I find such a vantage point to be incompatible with what the Bible, and therefore God, do say about marriage. You can debate my position all you wish, but it will not change.

The Bible doesn't condemn same sex marriage. It does condemn divorce.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mathew 19:9

Yet Kim Davis in her self serving version of 'religion'.....refused to allow her office to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples. But did allow those who were divorced to remarry. As she herself did 3 times.

Can I take it from your stark refusal to discuss Kim Davis and your careful editing out of any mention of her that you concede the point?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So 'each and 'every time'....except those two times. And this one.

With Moses had at least 2 wives. Zipporah (Exodus 2: 21) and the Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1). And before you try to argue that Ziporah was the Cushite....Numbers 10: 29 makes it ludicrously clear that Moses' father law was a Midianite. Making Zipporah a Midianite

Interesting, they were all polygamous marriages not homosexual marriages. Once again a man marrying two or more women. Still heterosexual. Multiple women committed to one man. I'm not interested in lineage. And this fails to make your case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Bible doesn't condemn same sex marriage. It does condemn divorce

So you flatly ignored what I said and repeated a falsehood.

God made himself clear in Leviticus it was an abomination. That position never changed, his will remained the same. So did God just change his mind?

 

[Katzndogz]

What ever Kim Davis did she did before she became a Christian. What did she do after she became a Christian? How many marriages?

So, if I murder someone (or many people) before I become a Christian and then don't murder anyone after I become a Christian, it's all cool? All is forgiven and forgotten? It's like those murders never happened? How cool.

According to your relationship with God, it is all forgiven. It is cool. It's like being born afain. That's why it's called a born again Christian.

 

[Wildman]

You hate Americans because of who they are

correction please, LGBT or what the fuck ever.., is NOT a "who", it is a "what"..., agree ??

 

[Skylar]

So 'each and 'every time'....except those two times. And this one.

With Moses had at least 2 wives. Zipporah (Exodus 2: 21) and the Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1). And before you try to argue that Ziporah was the Cushite....Numbers 10: 29 makes it ludicrously clear that Moses' father law was a Midianite. Making Zipporah a Midianite

Interesting, they were all polygamous marriages not homosexual marriages. Once again a man marrying two or more women. Still heterosexual. Multiple women committed to one man. I'm not interested in lineage. And this fails to make your case.

More accurately, they weren't 'one man and one woman' as you described 'each and every' marriage was in the Bible. But one man and multiple wives.

Can I take it from your sidestep that you've conceded that point as well?

And of course, divorce is still condemned by the Bible. And yet Davis was perfectly fine issuing marriage licenses for those 'adulterers'. While refusing to allow marriage licenses for something the Bible doesn't even condemn.

As I said......the Bible is a moral Rorschach test.

 

[Skylar]

The Bible doesn't condemn same sex marriage. It does condemn divorce

So you flatly ignored what I said and repeated a falsehood.

God made himself clear in Leviticus it was an abomination. That position never changed, his will remained the same. So did God just change his mind?

No more than you explicitly and carefully editing out any mention of Kim Davis and refusing to address it.

And of course, nothing I said was untrue. As you well know....as you explicitly and carefully edited out the New Testament passage I cited affirming my own point. With those being the words of Christ directly.

If both you and Kim Davis are more willing to ignore even Jesus himself, it seems 'religion' is whatever *you* imagine it is. And I'm unwilling to exempt you from generally applicable law based on your imagination. As Scalia, a devout Catholic, so eloquently put it:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
​

The risk to law is far greater than the virtually non-existent 'threat to religious freedom' you described. With lightning being a far greater threat to the individual exercise of religion than your imagined 'threat'.

 

[Esmeralda]

What ever Kim Davis did she did before she became a Christian. What did she do after she became a Christian? How many marriages?

So, if I murder someone (or many people) before I become a Christian and then don't murder anyone after I become a Christian, it's all cool? All is forgiven and forgotten? It's like those murders never happened? How cool.

According to your relationship with God, it is all forgiven. It is cool. It's like being born again. That's why it's called a born again Christian.

Wow, what a bargain. I can go around murdering people and then be 'born again' and forgiven. Rinse and repeat. Such a deal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No more than you explicitly and carefully editing out any mention of Kim Davis and refusing to address it.

I didn't because I was battling Syrius on another front. I'm on my smartphone right now, so I'll deal with this when I get home.

I was not willingly omitting anything.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet Kim Davis ignored all of it and happily allows marriage licenses to be issued to those remarrying after a divorce.

Twas her duly elected duty. Under the law you can no more stop someone from divorcing than you can from remarrying.

If a gay couple wishes to file for divorce, is she not allowed to issue a certificate of divorce to them? If a recently divorced gay man or woman comes into her office wanting to remarry another of the same sex, will she not be allowed to issue them a marriage license? Wouldn't that be denying them equal treatment under the law? If we are to allow gays to marry, should we not apply those same standards to them as well?

If we are to apply the biblical standard of divorce and remarriage to same sex couples, that would mean that if they ever "divorced", that as according to the Bible (point conceded on divorce), they should remain single and never again remarry.

It is indeed one and done. It's the right to marry once, not twice, or thrice, or a score of times. Gays fought for equal treatment under the law regarding marriage, I would assume it only fair in the context of this discussion to apply the Biblical standards of divorce and remarriage to them as well. However, once again, it would contradict the whole idea of "marriage equality" if they weren't allowed to divorce or remarry as they pleased.

I wonder, would they once again raise the protest that Christians are infringing on their rights to marry?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'd agree that Kim Davis certainly was, yes?

Maybe, but you sidestepped the question. If I am guilty of it, and Davis is guilty of it, are you not guilty of it also? (of selectively quoting the Bible)

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.

Well, this conflicts with his dissent in Obergfell, and other speeches he made, including his speech at Rhodes College in September of last year:

"[The Supreme Court] Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens ... I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that.”

Then in an unrelated case (on the death penalty if I recall), nearly a week after the Obergfell ruling he said:

"Last Friday, this court took away from the people the right to decide on same-sex marriage on the basis of their own policy preferences."

And in his dissenting opinion via Obergfell, he made clear that what the law defined as marriage was not particularly important to him.

"The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance."

If what he says that the law, by recognizing as marriage "whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes" is true, then people, as a collective of voters can and "by virtue of religion" become law unto themselves, deeming marriage to be between one man and one woman. That's the whole point right?

Your citation was from 1990. But 25 years later it seems to me the passage of time shifted his position on the matter of religious freedom, that, or, perhaps he said that even though one individual cannot change the law on his own, nor can he change a valid law to suit him or his religious beliefs, he and other like minded voters can seek to amend, or propose, or even by a majority, pass a law that would be more suitable to them (their beliefs).

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not blaming gays, just the mentally ill gay son..

Yet you have indeed been blaming gays- providing your own kooky theory that all gays are mentally ill- a theory that was discredited 42 years ago.

You have assigned your self judge and jury and have exonerated the father and blamed the person who was killed based upon your "in depth investigative analysis" that lead you to suggest incorrectly that the family was Muslim.

This was indeed a tragedy. Two people are dead. A father is in jail.

And you want to use the incident to spin your tales for whatever nefarious purpose you have.

Dear Syriusly
Some gay or transgender people ARE mentally ill. Look at the shooter in the case of the VA TV station who was gay and obviously ill
with both homocidal and suicidal issues.

Just because they are LGBT does not make them immune to mental illness that can affect anyone.

As for "a theory that was discredited 42 years ago"
what about spiritual healing that has healed people and changed orientation?
Where is the research that shows these cases?

The research isn't complete until ALL cases are studied.

People can be healed of anger or broken relations, and that doesn't count as mental illness.
So can people be healed of unwanted homosexual attractions, and that isn't a mental illness either.
But yes, such people can also have mental illness related to abuses if this is what
happened to them that caused them to exhibit the homosexual attractions and orientation.
Some cases are like that also.

Some are natural some unnatural.
Some can change, some cannot. Until all these are studied, the research
isn't complete and people are making biased conclusions based on biased research.