Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[glorydaz]

trump?

transgenders?

anyone?

Well, transgenders are people who feel like they are the opposite sex.

Their parents should have told them to get over it and accept themselves as God made them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, transgenders are people who feel like they are the opposite sex.

Their parents should have told them to get over it and accept themselves as God made them.

Wouldn't that include feeling as though they're the opposite sex though?

 

[glorydaz]

Wouldn't that include feeling as though they're the opposite sex though?

What do you mean?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What do you mean?

I mean, would that not include people feeling that way because God made them that way?

Look, for you and me it's pretty simple right, hetero with no hang ups religious or otherwise, correct? What about people who aren't?

 

[Jonahdog]

Well, transgenders are people who feel like they are the opposite sex.

Their parents should have told them to get over it and accept themselves as God made them.

Maybe god made them someplace in the middle? Or maybe The Fall caused a problem.
Or maybe sex and gender are not quite as simple and binary as you understand them to be.

 

[ok doser]

White House Asks Supreme Court To Fast-Track Ruling On Transgender Military Ban

November 24, 20185:34 PM ET

The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court on Friday to bypass lower courts and rule quickly on its ban of most transgender military members.

It's not the first time that the administration has asked the Supreme Court to intercede in the appeals process. In January, it petitioned the Supreme Court to fast-track cases challenging the Trump administration's plans to end DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The federal program protects young immigrants from deportation. That request was denied — but just weeks ago, the Justice Department asked again.

For a case to bypass lower courts, it must be of "imperative public importance" — important enough to warrant a change in the process it's reviewed by appellate courts, and important enough "to require immediate determination in this court," according to Supreme Court rules.

The official petition from Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco argued that the White House ban on transgender military members "satisfies that standard."

The proposed policy in question was sent to the president in February by Defense Secretary James Mattis. Those rules would disqualify service members "who require or have undergone gender transition." Individuals without a history of gender dysphoria would be required to serve under their biological sex.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/24/6705...fast-track-ruling-on-transgender-military-ban

 

[ok doser]

Nancy Pelosi, ensuring a republican win in 2020:

Shameless Pelosi Slams Trump on Transgender Military Ban

Favors leftist social engineering over fit armed services.


Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has labeled President Trump a bigot for choosing military readiness over the latest fashionable leftist social engineering cause. The president has asked the Supreme Court to bypass two appeals courts and issue a ruling on the administration’s policy barring transgender individuals from military service.

Decrying the “bigoted ban” as somehow being detrimental to military readiness, Pelosi – who is vying to become speaker of a Democrat-controlled House in 2019 – vowed that “House Democrats will never allow hate and prejudice to dictate our national security.”

“The President’s ban is a cruel and arbitrary decision designed to humiliate transgender Americans who have stepped forward to serve our country,” she said in an official statement.
Logic vs. Lunacy

Showcasing the heights of irresponsibility reached by a leftist congressional leader these days, Pelosi flings out the usual mindless social justice palaver that only serves to sever her party more and more from the reality of most Americans. Words like “bigoted” and “hate” are meant to shut down any focus on the simple point that it is pure insanity to allow potentially mentally unstable individuals into our armed forces.

Consider the fact that the American Psychiatric Association only backed away from its classification of “gender identity disorder” as a form of mental illness in December 2012. The World Health Organization only did so in June 2018.

As the Trump administration petition to the Supreme Court states, “[g]iven the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service, a history of most mental health conditions and disorders is automatically disqualifying.”

Suicidal Gunners?

Former President Barack Obama, on his way out of office, recklessly ushered in the policy change to allow transgender individuals into the military. That their condition is now classified as a “dysphoria” instead of a “disorder” should do nothing to advance their fitness for military service. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dysphoria as “a state of feeling very unhappy, uneasy, or dissatisfied.”

“Very unhappy” dysphoria and high-caliber weaponry are not a good combination.

It should go without saying that the military holds applicants to a high standard of mental fitness for a very good reason. Guns and explosive ordnance are involved in military service. It can literally be a matter of life and death. “Very unhappy” dysphoria and high-caliber weaponry are not a good combination.

It is beyond hypocritical that the same progressive ideologues who vociferously demand that the gender-identity distressed be allowed into the military also believe parents with sons who “might be depressed” should not be allowed to own guns. Democrats are touting the recent midterm election victory of “community pediatrician” Kim Schrier to a House seat in Washington state. Basking in her doctor persona to full emotional effect, Schrier ran an ad during her campaign warning about the dangers “not just to themselves” of young boys in houses that have a gun in them.

Yet these same Democrats want to issue military-grade weaponry to a minuscule fringe percentage of Americans who are known to suffer from an inordinately high rate of attempted suicide. “Approximately 41% of transgender people attempt suicide at least once in their lives compared to the rate of 5% in the general population,” states an article in the April 2017 issue of European Psychiatry, the official journal of the European Psychiatric Association. “Screening for suicidal ideation is important when working with the transgender community,” the article states. When suicide is a prime marker of your “community,” I would say that is reason enough for rejection from military service on the grounds of mental fitness.

Social engineering on behalf of irrational leftist causes has no place in a military environment. Our soldiers must be given the training to allow them to perform their duties in the safest and most effective manner. They have no time to waste learning how to sensitively co-exist with the pregnant man in the shower stall next to them.

But all this means nothing to Nancy Pelosi. She would rather put our soldiers’ lives at risk than pass up an opportunity to flash her social justice credentials to her progressive base.

https://www.libertynation.com/shameless-pelosi-slams-trump-on-transgender-military-ban/

 

[glorydaz]

I mean, would that not include people feeling that way because God made them that way?

If you mean how God "allows" messed up genes and birth defects as a result of this world's corruptions, that could well be. But I think we're talking outside influences in the case of transgenderism. It's a flaw in thinking rather than physical makeup.

Look, for you and me it's pretty simple right, hetero with no hang ups religious or otherwise, correct? What about people who aren't?

Children can be messed up by ungodly parents....big time.
Then societal pressures.

That's where the blame should be placed. IMO

 

[glorydaz]

Maybe god made them someplace in the middle? Or maybe The Fall caused a problem.
Or maybe sex and gender are not quite as simple and binary as you understand them to be.

Sin and corruption affect all of creation. No doubt about that.

 

[quip]

A woman dresses or acts seductively and a man sees it and rapes her? She is guilty of promiscuity, he is guilty of rape. She deserves to be flogged, and he deserves to be executed.
.

Who decides what is and is not seductive? Does showing a little ankle do it for you JR?

Guilty of promiscuity? How does that one work...is she guilty by just being alluring?

Is it the woman's sole responsibility to keep her seductiveness in check (if that's even possible) or rather the suductee's responsibility to keep his urges in check?

 

[quip]

The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court on Friday to bypass lower courts and rule quickly on its ban of most transgender military members.

Well, it's politically important to our mindless leader. National security?....:rotfl:

 

[JudgeRightly]

He'll tell me if I've read him wrong. But if one is serious about adultery needed the death penalty,

God says that adulterers and adulteresses should be put to death.

if one quotes the Law for that then so does every other sin.

First of all, we're not talking about sin here. We're talking about crime.

And second, not all crimes deserve death.

At some point in our lives, every single one of us would be on death row.

Not necessarily.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not talking about man's law, JR.

I'm talking about moral law verses ceremonial/symbolic law.

The law that GOD gave to Israel included bearing false witness

A moral law...

and also that only priests were to eat the temple shewbread.

... and a symbolic law that has no moral value, but was intended to preserve Israel as a nation.

You seem to be unable to rightly divide between that which is moral law and that which is ceremonial/symbolic law.

But we see in scripture that Rahab bore false witness about the spies,

She lied about their whereabouts. Bearing false witness is slightly different.

https://kgov.com/bel/20040130https://kgov.com/bel/20040130

and a priest gave David and his soldiers the shewbread to eat.

Considering this:

Violating non-moral laws is perfectly acceptable.

For instance: God had commanded that Isaac and his descendants were to be circumcised on the 8th day after their birth.

Later, God also commanded that that sabbath day was to be a day of rest, and that no work was to be done on that day.

Yet, as it so happens, there would be children born on saturday, and the 8th day would also be a sabbath, and since circumcision was doing work, there's a conflict there. The Israelites asked what should be done, they had to circumcise, but they also were not to work on that day.

God said for them to BREAK the sabbath, to keep the circumcision, because man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man.

However, God NEVER says to break moral laws to keep symbolic/ceremonial laws. You never have to violate "Do not murder" to keep "Do not steal."

Likewise, you never have to violate "Do not commit adultery" to keep "love your neighbor."

No I did not suggest that adultery was something that SHOULD be done.

What you said did suggest just that.

I'm saying that the consequences of your actions (whether those actions were good or bad) can have positive or negative results.

Therefore... something.

If someone commits adultery, there are only negative results.

Families are broken up, marriages are ruined, children's lives are destabilized, and they are far more likely to have relationship issues (among other things) later on in life.

It's not one way or the other, cut and dry, black and white.

"Do not commit adultery"

"The adulterer and adulteress should be put to death"

Seems pretty black and white to me...

To say that your actions earn and deserve the results is not a cut and dry, black and white argument.
See what I mean now?

"Do not commit adultery."

"...The adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death..."

:think:

You keep wanting to suggest specific scenarios as if that will settle the issue of the results of consequences being earned and deserved.

Taking something to the extreme is usually a good way to test to see if one's logic holds up.

You (and GD, for that matter) seem unwilling to even test your beliefs, let alone defend them.

It doesn't, nor can it.

Sure it can.

Because we can find situations in scripture where the spouse of an adulterer can choose to react in a loving, supportive, and forgiving nature or just stone them to death.
The case of Hosea and Gomer would be an example of a spouse choosing the mercy route instead of the condemnation route.

Huh?

What in the world are you talking about?

That's why scripture hopping to present only one side of the coin is rarely productive, because one can nearly always find an exception.
When one sees another exhibiting bad behavior, they have a choice of how they respond ---- mercy or condemnation.
Be glad of it, otherwise you could receive no mercy for any of your bad behavior.
And if you are given mercy for bad behavior, then why restrict other's bad behavior from receiving mercy?
Not so black and white is it?

Ahh, but there were shades of grey even in the OT times.
King David (a man after GOD's own heart) was not stoned to death for committing adultery.

And yet, God DID NOT repeal the death penalty for adultery.

Hosea did not stone his wife to death when she committed adultery, but took her back.
So even then there were exception to stoning an adulterer.

Again, what in the world are you talking about?

Makes you pause and wonder just why it is that all those folks living under the law at that time did not stone all adulterers to death as the law instructed.

When???

Doesn't hardly seem "fair" that some adulterers got stoned to death and some didn't.
Exceptions ---- scripture is full of them.

And yet, not once did God repeal the death penalty for adultery.

And I would venture to say that there is a good reason for it when you stop and think that without those exceptions we would all be up a creek without a paddle.

And I would venture to say that there's a good reason for God NOT REAPEALING THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ADULTERY.

Maybe you should stop and think about why, even when there are exceptions to the rule, that God doesn't repeal the rule... :think:

True.
And in JR's defense, it's his choice of how he responds to an adulterous wife.

Except it's not up to me. God says "Do not commit adultery" and "the adulterer and adulteress should be put to death."

:idunno:

I think there are many variables that come into play when making that choice, and the choice for one to choose to keep the adulterer as their spouse may not be the right choice for another to make with their adulterous spouse.

That's a very eye-opening verse isn't it!!!!

Funny how it has little to nothing to do with what I said.

I mean, think about it .................. would it have been right to follow the law and stone King David for adultery, or would it be right to let him live?

It would have been perfectly acceptable for David to be put to death for his crime, both for murder AND for adultery. I think you need to reread the story of David and Bathsheba again, because it doesn't seem like you're even considering what was said.

Would it have been right for Hosea to follow the law and stone his wife for adultery, or would it be right to let her live?

Yet again, what in the world are you talking about? :AMR:

Would it have been right for the priest to follow the law and not feed the starving David and his men the temple shewbread, or was it right to feed them the shewbread?

See above, re: breaking laws to keep other laws.

Decisions decisions.

:AMR:

He flips from GOD's law to civil law because he does not yet understand the purpose of the law and who it is for.

Um... It's very clear-cut in the Bible...

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:8-11&version=NKJV

Perhaps you're the one who doesn't understand who the law is for?

For the BOC Paul makes it clear that the law is not of faith and will justify no one.

DUH! But we're not talking about the Body of Christ. We're talking about the rest of the world, who is still under the law.

But those that do want to live under the law must abide by ALL of it, every jot and tittle, and that if you break any point of the law you are guilty of the whole law.

Except for adultery... Let's throw that one out... :AMR:

Galatians 3 KJV
(10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.​

:thumb:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this world today? He should suffer the consequences of his own actions. If his wife forgives him, he can remain in the family and mend his ways. If she can't, then he should move out and continue to support his children.

I don't believe it's the government's place to punish adulterers.

https://kgov.com/biblical-role-of-government-in-marriage

Prohibition didn't cut down on the drinking, did it?

It actually did. Well, stigmatizing the behavior did, and the prohibition held it in place.

With the amount of propaganda prior to the prohibition, cirrhosis of the liver counts were down, people were healthier, as Doser pointed out.

:think:

See Doser's multiple posts on it above.

The passing of laws does not make anyone righteous. Never has and never will.

Duh.

The goal is not to make people righteous.

The goal is to reduce the rate of decay of society.

Honestly, if you don't understand what it is we're saying, how can you expect to make a proper argument against it.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.​

No argument there...

Killing all the perverts doesn't sound like it will work to me.

:AMR:

GD: "Killing all the murderers doesn't sound like it will work to me"

God (through Solomon's wisdom): "Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

JR is in the valley on this issue.

:AMR:

In the valley? GD, You bettere believe I'm up at the top of Zion on this one. :think:

I've been there, as I'm sure others have as well. After all, it's where the growth takes place.

:AMR:

You sound like the Pharisee in Luke. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. ...

I don't see doser bragging about his righteousness here.... I see him trying to uphold the law, as Paul says to do in 1 Timothy.

Whenever I hear someone claim to pray that God guide someone else in their "confusion", (especially, when they voice it aloud) they have proven they wish to be heard by men, not God.

Knock it off, Doser. I've watched people do that to you and I've watched you dismiss it just as I do you now. I'm not into any of these stupid games.

Just show me where Paul supports the death penalty for adultery.

For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:11&version=NKJV

“You shall not commit adultery. - Exodus 20:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:14&version=NKJV

‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus20:10&version=NKJV

Show me where the Laws of Moses are to be enforced on the Gentiles.

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Romans 3:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:31&version=NKJV

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:8-11&version=NKJV

I'll wait while you climb down off your rocking horse.....:chew:

:mock:

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud. - Proverbs 16:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs16:18-19&version=NKJV

Intelligent people thought Prohibition would work, too. :rotfl:

And it did. See Doser's posts above.

I don't like perversion,

But you won't raise a finger in opposition to it.

but making laws won't help.

You sure about that?

Making something illegal and stigmatizing it tends to lessen its frequency.

And trying to kill them all would be an impossible task.

Why would you have to execute them all?

Just execute a few of them, the rest will quickly fall in line.

Not enough courts in the land.

Not with our current legal system.

However, if we were to implement a judiciary following the guidelines (expanding it for a larger population of course) given by JETHRO (a pagan, btw, who's idea God thought was good enough to include in the Bible) in Exodus 18, there would be no fewer than 15,734,534 judges throughout the USA (as opposed to the current number of judges sitting at 3,294 (for a population of 325 million...)).

15,734,534 people judging would be MORE than enough to handle the amount of crime today. And they wouldn't even have to judge full time.

Not enough lawyers...

God's criminal justice system didn't (and still doesn't) require lawyers. Why would we need them in a godly system?

none if you guys want to kill the ones that get perverts off.

Huh?

Maybe if you found a pervert gene, you could just get them while still in the womb. :think:

So, you're advocating murder? :shocked:

You know we live in a world of sin, don't you?

Yup. Which is why I'm trying to make it better by advocating laws that would reign in the ones who are detrimental to society.

You understand that things will get worse and worse as the Day of our Lord draws near?

So therefore, we should just let society roll downhill unimpeded?

:mock:

I'd rather try to keep society together as long as possible, thank you very much.

Better get out there and preach the Gospel to the lost instead of killing them before they get a chance to hear.

Uh...

Who says that there wouldn't be an opportunity to witness to those who are sentenced to death before they're put to death? Not me...

Thank the Lord I have your permission. :chuckle:

Let's not use the Lord's name in vain. It's blasphemy.

I know all about them, Doser. I know they had NO parental guidance... lived on the streets like animals.

So therefore, it was ok for them to kidnap then murder that little boy.... :vomit:

I've met children exactly like that, and WILL NOT hold them accountable for they have done nor would I advocate their execution.

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? - 1 Corinthians 6:2-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians6:2-5&version=NKJV

Not my place to decide, but it sure wouldn't be while in childhood.

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? - 1 Corinthians 6:2-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians6:2-5&version=NKJV

This is basic common sense.

An appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, GD. I was just getting onto Arty for this very same thing earlier.

Why should I give you any more, when you reject scripture out of hand?

Hypocrite.

We've given you plenty of scripture that supports what we believe, and you have rejected it in favor of your own reasoning.

You've provided four passages within your last 30 POSTS!

And you have the nerve to refuse to provide more?

We've posted scripture after scripture after scripture to support our beliefs, and what do we get for it?

Outright rejection because you're too nice to want criminals punished.

You run to scripture and God's Law when it suits you, and then run away to the civil law when it doesn't.

Not once have I used civil law, common law, or any man-made law system to defend my beliefs.

Neither has doser.

It's like trying to catch a hummingbird flitting from flower to flower.
Sweet but no real rhyme nor reason to it's flights of fancy.

:blabla:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, in his own trollish way he's "serious" enough about it and JR most certainly is. In "zealot world", OT laws should still apply today

Incorrect.

As I have said before, I am a theonomist, I advocate that man's laws should reflect God's laws.

and that means stoning adulterers to death, no shades of grey or anything, just take the "guilty party" out, have a quick trial with two to three witnesses and if found guilty, lob rocks at them until they're dead. Doesn't matter whether the couple can work things out etc...

Oh, JR is absolutely serious about it, doser's probably more interested in the stirring the pot aspect but JR is totally sincere with having a society that enacts ancient laws, even to the point of killing six year old's with stabbing if that was the "appropriate penalty". Sure, it's bat crazy but there's folk who advocate this stuff...

To level headed people it certainly isn't black and white. The likes of JR would deprive an estranged couple of the opportunity to reconcile regardless of circumstances. Making adultery a black and white capital crime would simply reduce the amount of people getting married.

Where in the world do you get these crazy ideas? :dunce:

Making adultery a crime would reduce the number of people committing adultery, not the number of people getting married.

JR seems to prescribe flogging for fornicating couples so let's face it.

Uh, no. The punishment for fornication outside of marriage is that the couple is forced to marry and never allowed to divorce.

Society would just be one nightmare, "religious state" which wouldn't be far removed from extremist states we see elsewhere in the world if legalists had their way.

:kookoo:

Not at all what it would be.

No, it just increased bootlegging until sanity prevailed and it was abolished.

See doser's post above.

He's adamant on it. Fair enough, he can change his legalism in time and hopefully will but no guarantee.

:blabla:

It's only the ultra zealots, those with a grudge to bear and the heartless who would advocate this type of stuff in the present. I'm just glad that it's a minority although the type of indoctrination that leads to such mindsets still goes on and that's disheartening. Being taught not to question what a church taught led to me leaving one albeit on a different subject.

:blabla:

:troll:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who decides what is and is not seductive?

The person wearing the clothing? :idunno: If the person is trying to seduce people, they're in the wrong.

If a woman wears a beautiful dress for her husband, but it has an open back, they're fine.

Does showing a little ankle do it for you JR?

:troll:

Guilty of promiscuity? How does that one work...is she guilty by just being alluring?

Is it the woman's sole responsibility to keep her seductiveness in check (if that's even possible) or rather the suductee's responsibility to keep his urges in check?

¿Por que no los dos?

 

[ok doser]

Well, it's politically important to our mindless leader. National security?....:rotfl:

you dint bother to read the pelosi post, did you? :sigh:

 

[WizardofOz]

If a woman wears a beautiful dress for her husband, but it has an open back, they're fine.

And if said women is in public wearing that open back dress and someone else deems this inappropriate? Who in the fashion police has the final say as to what is decent or indecent before the flogging commences? :think:

Laws need to be clear if people are expected to obey them.

Spoiler

Better safe than sorry?

 

[ok doser]

And if said women is in public ...

Who told her she could leave the kitchen?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Incorrect.

As I have said before, I am a theonomist, I advocate that man's laws should reflect God's laws.

Eh, it's legalism whatever term you want to attach to it.

Where in the world do you get these crazy ideas? :dunce:

Making adultery a crime would reduce the number of people committing adultery, not the number of people getting married.

Empty assertion without support, a habit with you.

Uh, no. The punishment for fornication outside of marriage is that the couple is forced to marry and never allowed to divorce.

Wow, well that ensures a healthy relationship then doesn't it?

:freak:

:kookoo:

Not at all what it would be.

Sure it would under what you advocate, such as the above for starters. You're a poster boy for why we have separation of church and state. It protects society from living under some religious dictatorship that imposes its own branch of "morality" on everyone regardless.

See doser's post above.

I saw it and you should do your own reading on the subject. If you think prohibition didn't cause its own problems then read up, organised crime for starters.

:blabla:



:blabla:

:troll:

Back at ya.

:yawn:

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you mean how God "allows" messed up genes and birth defects as a result of this world's corruptions, that could well be. But I think we're talking outside influences in the case of transgenderism. It's a flaw in thinking rather than physical makeup.



Children can be messed up by ungodly parents....big time.
Then societal pressures.

That's where the blame should be placed. IMO

What about people who have been raised responsibly with no pressures who simply find themselves "different"? I've seen cases where parents blame themselves where one of their children is gay, often religious parents but there was no blame.

 

[quip]

The person wearing the clothing? :idunno: If the person is trying to seduce people, they're in the wrong.

Yet, people seduce all the time...it's the game of attraction, it makes the world go around. You enjoy it as much as she. So, where does the line become drawn....?

If a woman wears a beautiful dress for her husband, but it has an open back, they're fine.

"They're fine" ?

What about only her? She's still being seductive....what makes this (conveniently detailed) situation any different? If this woman got raped by a stranger by way of seductively exposing her back...would she deserve her attack?

:troll:

Apparently, you like those exposed backs! each:

¿Por que no los dos?

Interesting response...I'd say the game of seduction and attraction is played by both the male and female participants yet, it's the women who recieve the bulk of the physical abuse; men, therefore, the bulk of the responsibility to restrain from such.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Eh, it's legalism whatever term you want to attach to it.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Empty assertion without support, a habit with you.

Hypocrite. You said:

Making adultery a black and white capital crime would simply reduce the amount of people getting married.

Without providing any support for it.

So I dismissed it without support.

Talk about projection...

Wow, well that ensures a healthy relationship then doesn't it?

It would provide a more stable household for any child to grow up in than would otherwise.

[emoji33]:

Aren't you always the one saying "think of the children? :mock:

Sure it would under what you advocate, such as the above for starters.

What was that you were staying about providing support for one's assertions?

Hypocrite.

Haven't you heard of Hitchens's razor?

You're a poster boy for why we have separation of church and state.

That's funny, because "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution.

It protects society from living under some religious dictatorship that imposes its own branch of "morality" on everyone regardless.

Adultery has been criminal for the past 3.5-4 thousand years. It didn't require a "religious dictatorship" to enforce that prohibition.

I saw it and you should do your own reading on the subject. If you think prohibition didn't cause its own problems then read up, organised crime for starters.

Where have I ever advocated for a prohibition on beer?

We were using the prohibition on beer as an example that enforcing prohibitions on things can be effective, not that the prohibition on beer was right or wrong.

:dunce:

Use your head Artie.

Back at ya.

:yawn:

:rain: