Arkansas Blog

So is Cox planning to now help find homes for all those kids in foster care?

Hey Jerry, STFU.

Max, is it that unfathomable to you that the people of Arkansas have different values than the Arkansas Blog?

Who knew that Jesus literally meant suffer the little children?
By the actions of the "Family" Council more children will get to Jesus even faster - unless they've had an abortion!
Good on 'em!

Sometimes I find God hard to figure out.

God wanted the Family Council to win on the foster/adoption amendment.

God didn't want the Family Council to win on the lottery amendment.

If God directed the Family Council to engage in both of those efforts, why was it successful in one but not the other?

Can God win only SOME of His contests?

Why does God allow these mixed messages?

This issue just makes me see red. And while I am pumped about Obama this Act 1 nonsense is just flat out embarrassing...

Jerry Cocks and the Family Band have just cost the taxpayers more money and more resources while punishing anyone who is gay or just doesn't want to be married. How friggin' loony are these people?! Think for a minute...how many good folks do you know that gay or unmarried cohabitants that would make fabulous parents? I can think of about a hundred...

And yes, Bus, there are many Arkansans that buy into this madness because they generally fail to look deeper into the issue (of many, by the way). I had a conversation with a guy this morning that voted for it but two minutes into it he was regretting his vote. Wish I would've seen him sooner...

I think there may be some merit to the lack of any statewide contributing to the lower turnout. Either way, there clearly wasn't enough of a push to get this thing defeated or it was just badly underestimated...

This is NOT better for the kids...

Embarrassing...

Max: Act 1 was confusing enough. You have to vote AGAINST something when you're IN FAVOR of what it's trying to OUTLAW.

I have a well-educated friend who voted FOR the Act because she was in FAVOR of the staus quo and she thought the Act SUPPORTED the status quo.

That's bad enough.

But now your headline is "Why Act 1 was defeated" and it appears that Act 1 was NOT defeated, but that it passed.

Can you please straighten this out?

HELP!!!

These are hard economic times. Scary times.

Even folks who voted for Obama, in many cases, did so with a sense of dread of the unknown.

In hard times and scary times, people often want a little cud of hate and resentment to chew on, to reassure themselves.

Unfortunately, that cud is likely to be a group they can easily target and to whom they feel superior.

And even more unfortunately, those who cherish their cud of hate most of all are apt to be those who don't have the wherewithal to find their way out of the circumstances that produce the hard times.

It's sad, really, to see so many grown white men in Arkansas who are absolutely outdone that an African-American has finally claimed the presidency crowing about this one tiny, transient "victory" over a group they need to demean, in order to feel that at least they retain some control of their tiny little worlds. Sad waste of time, energy, and intellect, this hating rather than building something worthwhile in the world.

"Max, is it that unfathomable to you that the people of Arkansas have different values than the Arkansas Blog?"

Oh, by different values you mean hate?
Or how about that value of minding other folks business?
Maybe it would be nice for these folks with "different values" to step into the 21st century.
I am just disgusted with the voters of Arkansas at the moment.
"Suffer the little children" is indeed the motto of the "values voters".

I suggest that those folks who have "different values" get with the program and open their homes up to those children in the foster care system. When is the Cox family getting those foster kids?

Someone needs to put pressure on Jerry Cox and the Family Council. Who are they? Members? How do they utilize their money? Is Cox paid a salary? Do they file taxes? Could be a good story if someone would dig.

If "liberals" sat out the election despite the chance to vote in the first black president -- and vote against the God Squad Alaskan and Bombs Away senator -- then the hell with them.

This isn't directly related, but I was looking at the results of California's Proposition 8, that passed and which will prevent same-sex unions. For one, the exip polls said Prop. 8 would fail - but it didn't which calls into question their accuracy of course ( or just means people are lying)

Looking at some analysis:

Supporters of same-sex marriage may have been hurt by the enthusiastic turnout among African-Americans for president-elect Barack Obama. CNN exit polls found black voters affirming Proposition 8 by a 70-to-30 margin. Whites and Latinos, however, were nearly evenly split.

Those under 30 voted 66 to 34 against Proposition 8 in CNN's exit polls.

Californians who attend church weekly voted for Proposition 8 by an 83 percent to 17 percent. Those who attended church occasionally voted 40 percent in favor and 60 percent opposed.

Californians who never attend church were 14 percent in favor and 86 percent against. Apparently the godless are strongly pro- same sex marriage.

College graduates opposed Proposition 8 by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin. Those without a college degree favored it, 53 percent to 47 percent.

55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.

The fact that 70% of African Americans were opposed to same-sex unions stands out as a significant statistic in such a more liberal state as California. To put it another way -- if only whites and hispanics voted, same-sex marriage probably would be still be legal in California. The irony in this is obvious.

The fact that 83% of people who go to church every week were in favor of Prop. 8 is also stunning.

Of course, Obama (who probably goes to church every week) also opposeed same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban, which confuses me. Instead, he was for civil unions, which I see as a decent compromise, but whenever I say that, my more liberal friends look at me funny.

I think I'm going to have to go to political news junkie rehab soon. I'm going into withdrawal already.

I think the wording was too difficult. The few days prior to election day, a LOT of people were asking me "okay, if you want kids adopted you vote yes, right?" And I had to keep telling people..."if you want better adoption practices you vote NO. Yes means you think co-habitating adults cannot adopt". A lot of people got confused on that one, and I wonder how many voted YES unintentionally thinking that meant YES to adoption.

Even at the polls I saw a lot of people reading and reading and reading, I can only guess they were reading that issue becuase the wording was a little too difficult.

just my $.02 as I was shocked it passed.

I'm sorry, but CANNOT bear to read Cocks's SHIZZ - and it's totally predictable anyway. As for separation of church and state - that's BS too, even in Cali. Sad. We need to refer to our other "victory" as the Arkansas Hates Foster Children Act.
|

No worries. If (God forbid) something should ever happen to me, I'll just make sure my brother and his live-in partner of 13 years know to go ahead and uproot their lives and destroy the fabric of their family by living separately so that my child, who has just lost a parent, won't have to go live with total strangers. Good plan, Jerry. It's obvious that you care about families.

Anybody want to help initiate a proposal wherein those otherwise eligible to adopt must start taking, by random drawing, those children in need of adoption?

All those in covenant marriages would have their names placed in the random drawing three times since they cannot divorce easily and their households are, therefore, more stable.

Arky

Great idea, Arky! It's all about the children anyway, right?

And who is more concerned about children than Christians in covenant marriages?

Who more capable of providing good homes for children in need? And who more willing, we must assume, since the scripture talks about going the extra mile and giving what we have to the poor, etc.?

So. Any takers? Let's get the hat out and drop those names in.

You in, chasv? LargeA? Pumpkin Carver? Catfish Eater? Pines?

Hat's ready and waiting . . . .

Superbleeder, a point herre... I did not see anything in the Act that would prevent you from nominating your children's guardian should you die. This act does not prevernt your children from going to your brother. In your will, you may nominate whomever you want and the courts are obliged to follow your instructions.

What this Act prevents is the STATE making the decision to put children in foster homes or allowing adoption by gays and live-ins. IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES a child of deceased parents going to live with relatives IS NOT ADOPTED. Remember, an adoption legally changed the parentage... a new birth certificate is issued, with the "new" parents.

Now before you jump on me... I personally think the Act sucks. I was adopted through DHS (back in 1964... a bit different time...) and I've always wanted to adopt another child myself (my wife doesn't want to... it's a "Korean" thing.) I've put in LOTS of volunteer hours with foster kids and I know they need a stable, loving home, not a series of shelters run by the Guvamint.

I think this act will ruin a lot of kids. BUT... let's argue about the Act as written and not cloud the issue.

Don? Strange?

Hat's making the rounds. Don't hesitate to put your names in.

Children are in need of good Christian homes! Whatcha waiting for?

So if something were to happen to me and my wife, my mother cannot legally adopt my son because she is a widow. Thanks Cox...your hatred for gays convinced you to propose a blanket ban that is both nearsighted and bad for Arkansas. Thanks.

MuddlingThrough, just request the names from the petitions that got this stupid thing on the ballot. That's were you need to pass the hat. As a matter of fact, why hasn't someone published all those names online?

I've asked that question before many times, G. Does anyone anyone KNOW - is there a process to get the names?
|

"my mother cannot legally adopt my son because she is a widow"

I think single people (gay or straight) can still adopt, right? You just can't be living with someone you are not married to. How in the world would that ever be enforced?

So if a single person adopts a child and then starts living with someone unmarried, do they take the child away?

If a married couple adopts a child, then gets divorced, does the state take the child away?

This state is nuts.

Slingerland say: I did not see anything in the Act that would prevent you from nominating your children's guardian should you die. This act does not prevernt your children from going to your brother. In your will, you may nominate whomever you want and the courts are obliged to follow your instructions.

Obliged ? Um.....no. I don't think so. But I'm wrong at least 5% of the time.

I know I always get all technical, but even if you say you want dirty uncle Phil to be your child's guardian upon your death, the court doesn't have to let Phil have his way. A probate must give "due regard" to any request contained in a will . . . "Due regard" gives a court LOTS of discretion to find someone other than dirty uncle Phil to be a guardian. 28-65-204.

To quote an old case:

Statutory preferential status given to natural parents of child is but one factor that probate court must consider in determining who will be the most suitable guardian for child; any inclination to appoint a parent or relative must be subservient to principle that child's interest is of paramount consideration.

Meaning - if the judge doesn't like the person named in the will to be guardian - they probably won't be the guardian.

Larry and G, there is such a website for several states--Florida, Massachusetts, and Oregon, if I am remembering correctly. It was put online by a church, I think. It's called www.knowthyneighbor.org.

I had assumed (and should have looked into this) that Arkansas law didn't make those names public as I know some other states do. I have followed amendment 2 in FL in particular, and I know that there the names are a matter of public record. People who signed the petition for the amendment and who then saw their names on the KnowThyNeighbor website were angry, and claimed their privacy had been invaded.

Why they should feel that way when they are pursuing a noble cause is beyond me. Right now, there's a case in FL courts to force the group spearheading that amendment to disclose the names of donors that have been hidden because they want to remain "anonymous."

It's a strange feeling, waking up proud to be an American but not so proud of being an Arkansan....

Whether it's the Hogs or Politics, we always seem to manage to blow the big games.

So if something were to happen to me and my wife, my mother cannot legally adopt my son because she is a widow. -Posted by: The Hack Attack
********
So many people seem to be whining about voting the wrong way because they didn't read the ballot - please read the Act! You should have been responsible and read it before you entered the booth. How did you miss all the comments Max has paid saying VOTE AGAINST VOTE AGAINST VOTE AGAINST?

Hack - You will see that your Mother CAN legally adopt your son as long as she isn't cohabiting. Nothing is said about what happens after that.

Geez people - READ before you badmouth someone so you can at least badmouth them for something that is true.

Let me see, I'm going to have to be careful when dealing with this subject. The last time I offered my opinion I got censored by this blog. It lost because most of the voters of Arkansas don't agree with the Arkansas Times. Is that a 'non controversial' comment?

Did any of the TV ads against Act 1 point out what it would actually do (ban unmarried people, straight or gay)? The only ad I saw was one where children just kept saying it was bad and then vote no at the end. My mother voted for it and had no idea it banned unmarried couples. Had she known, she would have voted NO. She saw all the commercials too.

Who ran their ad campaign??

Frankly, I woke up proud to be an Arkansan!!!!! I always have been.

I'm a Christian first, and any true Christian that voted to make it harder for children to be placed into loving homes should be ashamed. Considering over 50% of marriages end in divorce, this act was beyond ignorant.

Christians voted for the Act because they did not want children placed in homes with unmarried couples and homosexuals.

eark, and everyone else of you who thinks like he does, as far as children go there is no homosexuals homes that exist that can adopt a child. There is no such thing as a loving couple that are the same gender.. that is more beastly than anything else and children must be protected from that!
Oh, eark, no right minded Christian would ever even consider hurting a child like that. So, eark, what are you..
John 3:16 doesn't mean you are automatically born a child of God...! No one that has not been born again is a child of God! Some of you think you are born a child of God but YOU ARE NOT!
REPENT OF YOUR SINS AND BELIEVE ON THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. When the Holy Ghost convicts you are a sinner you have to answer the call.

christians don't vote...
christians judge and condemn!

Chasv and strange are you going to give any of these children a home? If not, then you should be ashamed of making it harder for them to find a home. PERIOD.

Chasv you are not a Christian. I've read enough of your comments to know that. You give us actual Christians a very bad name. You are a disgrace to the name which is the only connection you have.

And Chasv, John 3:16, ends in a comma not a period. Might want to add verse 17 to that.

How about a true and troubling situation with this new Act.
A single female friend is raising her sister's 3 children, she was appointed temporary guardian and is in the process of adopting them. The oldest child (male) turns 18 in January. She will then be cohabiting with an adult male. Will she lose all of them?

MadCat, according to Wikipedia:
Cohabitation is when people live together in an emotionally- and/or physically-intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married.

In response to ac360's question:

Arkansas Family Council files a form 990 with the IRS. The most recent one publicly available is from 2006.

Jerry Cox got paid $78,414 that year, and they raised a total of $530, 460 that year total. They purported to spend $352,879 on their purpose, "Education and research information and materials to churches and individuals within the state of Arkansas regarding abortion, pornography, traditional values and education." [sic]

You can look at their filings (and that of other 501(c)(3) orgs) by opening a free account at GuideStar. Click on my name for a link to the site.

Why Initiated Act One passed (easily)?

A. Large black voter turnout. Black voters in both California and Florida pushed bans on gay marriage over the top. Why wouldn't the same be true here?

B. A strong grassroots campaign trumped a slick media campaign.

C. Arkansas remains geographically in the Bible Belt and the majority of its citizens are Christians who hold values based on biblical principles. The God of the Christian bible despises homosexual behavior. That bible guides the decision making process of those who read and believe it.

D. The Act's passage IS in fact in the best interest of children. Homes that lack a marriage commitment are less stable and more likely to produce violence. Of course there are exceptions...great, loving gay couples and horrible, abusive married couples. But laws and acts are based on the rule, not the exception.

More than half-a-million Arkansans voted for this initiative. We are not all illiterate, uneducated, misguided, evil, confused, cruel or brainwashed robots who act on their pastor's command. We are your neighbors and we honestly believe you are wrong and we are right. As strongly as you believe the opposite to be true.

And I agree with several other posters...the Christian community...black, white, Asian, Latino...all need to rise up and care for the children in foster care...now more than ever.

What is the argument here? The act passed and was approved by a majority. It is the law of the land. End of issue.

"The Act's passage IS in fact in the best interest of children. "

Really?
Tell that to the kids in foster care who have no place to call home.

"The act passed and was approved by a majority. It is the law of the land. End of issue."

Not necessarily.

Any legislation can be tested in court. Legislation is an enabling act. The legal details have to be worked out. And they are subject to challenge and contest.

This act is NOT the law of the land. And this is not the end of the issue.

Yes, it is the law of the land---legal challenges or not. Until it is ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional, it is the law.

Did this act go into effect at midnight last night?

When did it go into effect? When DOES it go into effect?

It is NOT the law of the land. I don't think it's even the law in Arkansas, let alone "the land."

And this is NOT the end of the issue.

Well, I guess you can always have a dialogue with yourself.

Strangelove, that's more productive than trying to have a dialogue with you.

This act doesn't go into effect until January 1, 2009. It is NOT even the law in Arkansas yet, let alone the law of the land. And certainly isn't the end of the issue.

You might want to read the act before pontificating.

http://www.votenaturally.org/2008_elections/AG_Opinion_No_2007-293.pdf

But oops! I forgot. Strangelove is omniscient. So if Strangelove says it, it must be so.

Oh, please, quit spitting hairs. You know what I meant. Good grief! You people would argue about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. When the law takes effect on 1/1/09 it will be the law of the land. Try dealing with the substance of the article and not being a Philadelphia lawyer.

No, Strange. I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer, not even an Arkansas lawyer, or trying to be one.

But ever since the first time I questioned you on an issue, I've tried to get you to stay with the issue and tell the truth, and you've never done it once.

And now you're trying to shift the issue to spitting (unless you meant "splitting") hairs or counting angels on pinheads. Neither of which is the issue.

There is only one pinhead here and I am not he and I don't see any angels.

So what you said in the first place about this being "the law of the land" and "the end of the issue" was not true. And when you say something that is not true, unless it was simply a slip of the lip, then it is a lie.

So I'm accusing you of lying. Make whatever defense you wish. But don't try to change the subject or accuse me of being unfair. You made the statement, either defend it or retract it. Don't plead, "You know what I meant."

Even in your omniscience, you DO NOT KNOW WHAT I KNOW. That is not an answer, that is an attempt to shift the responsibility from yourself to me.

This is the reason I quit reading your statements and trying to respond to them with reason and logic weeks ago. I made the mistake of abandoning my decision.

THAT is my fault. I'll take responsibility for THAT. And with that, Good night.

So an Initiative was approved by the voters of Arkansas and it is NOT the law of the land. How is that a lie? I am anxiously awaiting this explanation. Are you suffering from PMS?

"We are not all illiterate, uneducated, misguided, evil, confused, cruel or brainwashed robots who act on their pastor's command."

Yes...you...are...

"Are you suffering from PMS?"

Strangelove, you should be so ignorant. The law will be challenged. The law will be overturned. Just as soon as Arkies who got fooled by the title of the act figure out what happened. All laws can be challenged, and don't you EVER forget that. The act was worded by anti-Christian Christians as a slight of hand.

If nothing else maybe we'll see a '57 type crisis where the federal government has to send troops to occupy Arkansas in order to allow people to adopt children and to prevent discrimination against homosexuals. And, since the far left is soon to control the government--yes that's correct, the far left--that may not be such a far fetched event in the future.

And it pleases me to NO END to know that you and chasv (and other despicable mouthbreathers) are terrified of our president elect. That he, and those that support him, are everything that you stand against. It pleases me to NO END that you'll always be forced to see him on tv. That you'll have to call him Mr. President should you ever encounter him. And oh yes, when you speak out against him we'll call YOU terrorist and un American. And we'll really consider shipping YOU off to Gitmo where 400lb men named Fifi and Klaus can have their way with you. We'll spy on YOUR phone calls, on YOUR family. Why do YOU hate the new America? Why do you hate the troops? You know what? If you don't like this country, then pack your feckin bags and move to FRANCE. If we have another terrorist attack it'll be because you and people LIKE YOU have brought the wrath of God upon this nation. I think some of you should be quarantined as well, because you suffer with various mental diseases and you are a danger to this country. I think we should send jack booted thugs to remove your children from your home...it's the very least we can do for them since you're now an ENEMY OF THE STATE and mentally ill. Your children will be re-educated to accept the new America.

See boys, the shoe is on the other foot now. This is a shoe you and others like YOU made during the last 8 years, and fitted to your own foot. You've the dry grins now, haven't you?

And don't put down women with your PMS comment. What, are you a fourth grader or something? Stupid. Just stupid.

"When the Holy Ghost convicts you are a sinner you have to answer the call. " by: chasv

...

3 ministers and their wives were just coming back from a convention when they got in a wreck and were all kiled. All 3 couples stood in line wating to get into heaven . St Peter opened the books and said to the first man: I can see that you were a good man but had one problem. You lusted after alcohol your whole life you never drank but your lust was so strong you would never marry until you met a girl named Sherry. Sorry, you can't come in. The second minister approached St Peter and he said: you were a good man, but it says here you lusted after money and your lust was so strong that you would not marry until you met a girl named Penny. Sorry, you cannot come in. The third minister turned to his wife and said: come on Fanny, lets leave.

I posted this once on a previous thread, but in case Chasv and Strangelove missed it:

Some facts on homosexuality:

A. Our sexuality is in fact something we are born with. I've heard from too many LGBT's and the story is always the same: when puberty hits, they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Scientists have even shown similarities between the physical structures of homosexual male and heterosexual female brains. The same holds if you look at the brains of homosexual females and heterosexual males.So if it is something that they are born with and not a choice, then it can not be sinful or evil, any more than being left handed or having blue eyes is.

B. The "Biblical arguments" against homosexuality don't hold up to close scrutiny. First, since the concept of homosexuality and the word itslef weren't invented until the 19th century, the bible can't really talk about it. Second, the laws in Leviticus that discuss it in a litteral translation are sentence fragments. They don't make sense as written. Translators have had to interject what they thought it meant (see religioustolerance.org). Third, Sodom and Gomorra's sin, according to later passages in the bible, was pride, not homosexuality. Isreal is constantly compared to them by the prophets for not following the hospitality laws and treating its poorest citizens wrongly. It wasn't until the 7th century AD that Sodom and Gomorra's story was equated with homosexuality. Fourth, the passages in Romans and Corinthians actually deal with a practice called pediastry, and not what we today call homosexuality. NAMBLA is closer to what it meant than the Lesbian/Gay Alliance.

C. Any time you separate someone you discriminate. You can not "hate the sin but love the sinner," regardless what your pastor tells you. We label people, and it dehumanizes them. Why do you think some people feel good about gay bashing? Because they don't see gays as human anymore. They are different, separate, not us. It's the same tecnique we've used for centuries to justify killing in wartime. It's how slavery and the Jim Crowe laws were justified. It's how women were marginalized. And it's just wrong.

I'm posting this to let some people know that not all Christians (in fact a growning majority) do not share Chasv's, Strangelove's, Largeass', or Pumpkincarver's views. Some of us actually think before we speak and study the Word, not just memorize and parrot certain passages that agree with our views.

AR's passage of Act 1 is just one of the many, many reasons why I've left my native Arkansas for my new home in New York City. The anti-gay hate that's so prevalent in Arkansas is simply too much. I stood at Rockefeller Center on Tuesday night and witnessed history being made with Obama's election. As a gay man, I'm now forced to reconcile a bittersweet post-election world. Straight people on the streets of Manhattan are still cheering for Obama's victory because they've lost nothing. On one hand, I'm cheering along but inside I'm hurt and angry. Tuesday was a straight victory and a gay defeat. I'm embarrassed to call myself an Arkansan now. In Arkansas I can be openly fired for being gay and now I can never adopt a child. When will Arkansas learn? The passage of Act 1 reminds me why the backwards Arkansans of the 1950s created the Little Rock Nine/Central High crisis. Shame on you, Arkansas. I'm currently looking for an organization that wants to proactively work on protecting New York state's gay protections before a right-wing group attempts to take it away first. Prop 8 in CA is the first example of gay rights being given and then taken away. 2004's sanctimonious constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage in Arkansas wasn't reversing any gay rights; its aim was to prevent a pro-gay right from ever being granted in the future. Disgusting. Thank you for all of those who voted no on Act 1. I'm going to keep my ears open for any movement to have Act1 appealed. God bless Arkansas and its kids in need- they definitely need it.

Arkansas Hillbilly , YOU HOMOSEXUALS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE AROUND YOU AND WE DON'T CARE TO HEAR YOU LAME EXCUSES FOR YOU BEING THAT.

Arkansas Hillbilly
IN THE BIBLE'S BOOK OF GENESIS GOD SENT FIRE DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORAH AND ALL THE CITIES AROUND THEM.. SO YOUR LIES ARE JUST THAT.

All Christians believer what the teaching of God's Holy Words... Bible.
I said all Christians.... not those who say they are christian but are not.
If you say the bible is a lie then that makes you a liar.

bejeeus, that is what the devil told you. Why tell a lie when the truth will do better...
WE are all sinners, born in sin, and if not born again you'll all die in your sins.
When will the world be free of liars.
My dad told me when I was a kid that God hates liars worse than anything.

spunkrat, hey spunk, we don't act on our pastors commands we respond to the teachings of God Holy Words..
stranglove worte,
You people would argue about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
Strange, that's why God killed all of them in sodom and gomorah,, he did not want to hear them ...

When Homosexuals control the world then the end will come with fire destroying the earth. They have no idea what they really are.

Chasv,

1st of all, I myself am not gay, but thanks for the date offer... :) Secondly, if you would bother to read the story in Genesis more closly, and not just the fire and brimstone section, you might find they were already slated to be destroyed before the Lot/Angels incident. Which was not about sex, believe it or not. It was about the hospitality laws. In biblical times, the law of hospitality was a sacred thing. In the ancient semitic societies, to place a man in the position of a woman was the gravest insult that could be done. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were giving the ultimate insult to these foreigners. That's why they refused Lot's daughters, it wasn't about sex.

I never said the Bible is a lie. In fact, to quote a prominent theologian, "Everything in the Bible is true, and some of it actually happened." Truth and fact are not the same. The Bible holds greath Truth, but not all the facts line up.

But then you probably will never understand that and will keep spouting your hateful message in the name of God. Hope you have fun with that. The only difference between you and a radical islamist is our laws prevent you from killing someone.

Jesus wept.

Arkansas Hillbilly I have to tell you are saying things that is not in the bible.. why do you do that?
If what you said is true, which it is not, God would have to appolize to all the nations that has ever been for the reasons you said.
God destroyed sodom and gomorrah for their filthy queery living!

You'd cut your nose off in spite of your face...
The Bible is of no private interpretation!

Chasv: You're still not getting it... There is more to the Bible than face value. Don't believe me? Then explain to me how you can justify your comments on other threads regarding undoccumented workers/illegal immigrants when in at least FIVE different places in the BIble it says to treat the ailien (stranger/soujerner in the Old KJV) as a citizen?

I actually am sorry you have only experienced the wrath of God and not his joy, forgiveness, and love. Your version of Christianity is so full of malice and hate. Is that really what Christ wants? I think not. Otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to do what he did. If all he wanted to do was punnish, then there was no need for the cross, and salvation is a cruel hoax. But it is NOT SO. He came to give us life, not death and sorrow, "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laiden and I will give you rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light." and again, "I came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly." That is the Christ I know. I hope you get to meet him someday.

Arkansas Hillbilly , how many names do you use on this blog? Are a jonney come lately?
My Bible tells me that happy is he that serves the Lord... I am happy as I can be in the Lord ..
where are you?
If you think homosexuals are loved by God you are insane.. !
God said in if a man lay with a man as with a woman to kill them both.
Do you want to know the book and verse?

Hill you sound very gay!

Chasv,

For your information, I do know the chapter and verse you speak of, Leviticus 20, if I am not mistaken. I also remember where these same laws tell us:

1. Don't eat pork, catfish, shrimp or lobster.
2. If your son acts up, kill 'im.
3. If a woman is raped in a rural area, she's not guilty of adultry, but if she is raped within the city limits, you should kill her because she could have called for help and someone could have saved her.
4. You are not allowed to mix linen and wool, or shoes made of both leather and cloth.
5. You should not plant different crops together in the same field.
6. You should not shave your beard or cut your hair.
7. If your son or daughter marries outside of your nationality or tribe, you should exile them.
8. No work on Saturday.

I could go on, but you get the idea...

BTW, why is it so important whether or not I am gay? Do I have to be black to be interested in racial equality, or a woman to be interested in gender equality? I believe in equality for all, and will fight for the rights of any who are oppressed. I took an oath many years ago to support and defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. To me that includes fighting for the rights of others.

First they came for the Jews. I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Communists. I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Catholics. I wasn't a Catholic so I said nothing.
Then they came for me... and there was no one left to say anything.

Hill, you are lukewarm.
Many times you do what you think is right for someone else but will be wrong for others and you don't have that right, neither do I.
One time a man came to Jesus and said make my brother dividethe inheritance with me.. do you know the answer Jesus gave him?

We have rights that God has given us and he will not take them away like some of you will try to do even when it is wrong.
Stealing, lying, bearing false witness, coveting your neighbors things, etc., is a sign that a man needs to be born again. It is wrong!

Hillbilly said,
Chasv: You're still not getting it... There is more to the Bible than face value.

Hillbilly, You are in serious trouble. You should know but ye don't have any idea what you are saying.
Rev. 22:18,19 would apply to anyone who thinks they can add or take away from God's word.

Face it, you'd better get your thoughts on what the Bible says and not what you want it to say.

Chasv,

This is my last comment on biblical hermenutics. Rev. 22:18-19 regards what was revealed to John. Not the Bible itself. In case you didn't study your biblical history, the Bible as we know it today was not codified until somewhere around the 3rd century AD. Do you want me to say it again? The Bible was not finished being canonized until the 3rd Century. The latest Rev. was written was the late 1st to early 2nd Century. So how could John be talking about a book that at the time DID NOT EXIST?

Yes, I believe you are right about the way it was prior but it sure applies today! The Bible is complete.

and, hillbilly, you forget that God inspired men to write the bible.
How could you be so smart?
Repent and be born again. Do not lean unto you own understanding.

Do you want the verse for that?