Reactions to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

[Walt]

Just for interest sake, did your pastor mention anything about the Supreme Court decision in his sermon last Sunday or this Sunday?

Yes, both

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There was, and still may be, a rule against allowing anyone in a homosexual relationship to donate blood.  Is this still the case?  If so, how long will it be before they cry. "discrimination"?

Will travelers cry "discrimination" because one just came back from being overseas and cannot donate? It is required one must be state-side for a certain amount of time before donating blood.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/gay-blood-ban_n_7264942.html

That is an eye-opening article. 

In answer to your question, I have not heard any travelers protesting.  I'm sure the majority of them realize it is for the safety of Americans.  On the other hand, the article you posted shows the mindset of the homosexual community.

Fair and balanced.

 

[RAIDER]

There was, and still may be, a rule against allowing anyone in a homosexual relationship to donate blood.  Is this still the case?  If so, how long will it be before they cry. "discrimination"?

Will travelers cry "discrimination" because one just came back from being overseas and cannot donate? It is required one must be state-side for a certain amount of time before donating blood.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/gay-blood-ban_n_7264942.html

That is an eye-opening article. 

In answer to your question, I have not heard any travelers protesting.  I'm sure the majority of them realize it is for the safety of Americans.  On the other hand, the article you posted shows the mindset of the homosexual community.

Fair and balanced.

Travelers - "We understand why you won't take our blood.  We want Americans to be safe."

Homosexuals - "If you don't take our blood you are discriminating!  We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court!!"

Fair and balanced. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There was, and still may be, a rule against allowing anyone in a homosexual relationship to donate blood.  Is this still the case?  If so, how long will it be before they cry. "discrimination"?

Will travelers cry "discrimination" because one just came back from being overseas and cannot donate? It is required one must be state-side for a certain amount of time before donating blood.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/gay-blood-ban_n_7264942.html

That is an eye-opening article. 

In answer to your question, I have not heard any travelers protesting.  I'm sure the majority of them realize it is for the safety of Americans.  On the other hand, the article you posted shows the mindset of the homosexual community.

Fair and balanced.

Travelers - "We understand why you won't take our blood.  We want Americans to be safe."

Homosexuals - "If you don't take our blood you are discriminating!  We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court!!"

Fair and balanced. 

I was talking about the article which articulated their position without skewing it.

Blood donations should be under the scrutiny for its affects on public health. No doubt there are gay people who understand this and won't fuss about it. In turn, if the screenings are now able to identify potential issues within the medically-inspected time frame of public safety, if keeping people from donating simply because they are gay, that would be discriminatory.

Like all political issues, there are extremists at every angle, whether it be gun control to the Confederate flag to creation being taught in public schools to interracial marriages to immigration, etc. and usually it is the extremists who get the air time because they intentionally try to create controversy. In fact, trying to create controversy means generally they are in the minority and are trying to get others (even within their own subculture) to jump on board with their position.

So if you see wackos, whether it be extreme feminists or Westboros, they generally don't have the support of their "own kind" so they have to recruit by making their position known and attempt to lend seeming credibility to it.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Just for interest sake, did your pastor mention anything about the Supreme Court decision in his sermon last Sunday or this Sunday?

Yesterday's message was entitled "What the Gospel Teaches us About Homosexuality."  The text was John 8:3-11. His points were as follows.
1.  We will have a heart for homosexuals when we view them as people made in the image of God and not as a political issue. (v 6)
2.  We will have a heart for homosexuals only as we acknowledge our own sinful tendencies. (vs 7-10)
3.  We will have a heart for homosexuals as we become fully informed with God's Words about same-sex attraction. (vs 7-10)
4.  We will have a heart for homosexuals only when we move towards them with compassion, convinced of the power of the Gospel to transform their lives. (v 11)

His intent is to preach a series on homosexuality. Next week the text will be from Rom 1.

 

[Least of These]

Travelers - "We understand why you won't take our blood.  We want Americans to be safe."
Homosexuals - "If you don't take our blood you are discriminating!  We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court!!"

It's not fair or accurate to subscribe one way of thinking to an entire group of people, though perhaps you were being intentionally hyperbolic.  It's kind of hard to tell. 

From the article:  "A real evidence-based policy would focus on the risk activities of donors, not the identity of donors or their partners."  What is there to argue with?  Travelers aren't banned for life simply because they traveled; their risk is assessed for a reason and once they're determined to be safe donors, they are again allowed to donate.  Simply "being gay" does not contaminate one's blood, and gays shouldn't be denied the opportunity to donate if they are determined to be safe donors, just like everyone else.  <--- That's where the discrimination comes in. 

I've had cancer I'm banned from donating for life because my blood would put people at risk.  People understand that - even ::gasp:: gay people (who are not a raving mass of group-think activists, no matter how many times they are portrayed as such). 

 

[subllibrm]

People understand that - even ::gasp:: gay people (who are not a raving mass of group-think activists, no matter how many times they are portrayed as such).

The same non-group think people who resisted any kind of notification rules at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. While at the same time the rest of us had to have blood tests for STDs to get married (and if found positive were legally required to provide the names of all of our sex partners).

They really do not want to be treated any differently than the rest of us except for when they do.

 

[Least of These]

The same non-group think people who ...

It's not fair or accurate to claim that an entire group of people all think the same way. 

Besides, nobody had to take a pre-marital blood test; you could've chosen to stay single, or moved to a state where testing wasn't required (which I suspect were the same options available to The Gays).

 

[subllibrm]

The same non-group think people who ...

It's not fair or accurate to claim that an entire group of people all think the same way. 

Besides, nobody had to take a pre-marital blood test; you could've chosen to stay single, or moved to a state where testing wasn't required (which I suspect were the same options available to The Gays).

And you didn't hear the people getting married screaming bloody murder that their privacy was being trampled. How many extra deaths happened because the gay lobby worked so hard to prevent notification rules? Then they blamed the government for not doing enough to stop the spread!

The number one tool to stop the spread of disease is to isolate those who are infected from those who are not. This was a disease that no one knew about or how to combat but the gay lobby didn't care. They just wanted to have the freedom to live out their "lifestyle" without any hindrance.

 

[Least of These]

By "they" do you mean every gay person in America?  The world?

I'm not saying the events you describe didn't happen, I'm saying it's not fair or accurate to claim that any group of people all think & feel the same way.  I don't know any gay activists or lobbyists, but the gay people I do know are nothing like the "they" you are so angry with.  I dare say that if you know any gay people, the same is true of them.

This discussion has veered into dead-horse-beating territory, and I can see that my opinion only serves to make y'all angry.  That honestly is not & has never been my intent. 

 

[subllibrm]

By "they" do you mean every gay person in America?  The world?

I'm not saying the events you describe didn't happen, I'm saying it's not fair or accurate to claim that any group of people all think & feel the same way.  I don't know any gay activists or lobbyists, but the gay people I do know are nothing like the "they" you are so angry with.  I dare say that if you know any gay people, the same is true of them.

This discussion has veered into dead-horse-beating territory, and I can see that my opinion only serves to make y'all angry.  That honestly is not & has never been my intent.

I'm not angry.

Just pointing out that a) there is a gay lobby/agenda b) they want to be treated equally except for when they don't.

Now whether that applies to you and yours or not is totally irrelevant to my point.

 

[Least of These]

Now whether that applies to you and yours or not is totally irrelevant to my point.

But that was my entire point, and then you replied to it.  Silly of me, I guess, to connect the two. 

 

[IFB X-Files]

Some of you will rejoice with this.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/07/jimmy-carter-says-he-believes-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage-but-even-he-makes-a-big-admission-about-that-claim/

 

[rsc2a]

Everyone wants to be treated equate except when they don't. And the "Christian" Right's response to AIDS has hardly been saintly.