AMA: Fuzzy Bear

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm going to ask a few questions here. In your opinion, who are the best and worst members of Congress, of both parties? And who are the best and worst state governors, of both parties? What is your opinion of DeSantis (aside from his stance on felon voting rights), and of your state's two Senators? What about your local representative?

Best members of Congress:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

I'm neutral about DeSantis, and the voting rights issue may resolve itself in the Courts.  Absent that issue, I may vote for him in 2020.  He DOES seem proactive in some positive ways.  They are ways that may bring him in conflict with the Legislature, but that's happened before with Florida's Republican Governors.

I'm not a fan of either Scott or Rubio.  I voted for Rubio in 2016, and I may do so again.  I've never voted for Scott, and I'm not inclined to do so in 2024.  If the Democrats nominate a crank, I may abstain.  I actually think Scott is going to run for President in 2024, but I could be wrong.

I see. But I'm still curious to see who you think the worst members of Congress are. I would assume that the Squad would be among them?

The Worst Members of Congress?  Hmmmmmm . . .

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (D-MS)
Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

There are people like Al Green, Barbara Lee, and Eric Swalwell that are clowns, but they are idiots who don't do much harm.  Waters is worse than any of the Squad, Omar and Tlaib are anti-American, IMO, Hyde-Smith is likely the most anti-black member of Congress, and Cotton is a guy who scares me to death.  I view Cotton as a warmonger with a God-complex, and a very, very dangerous individual.  He's the guy who'll lead America into WWIII.

I'm surprised that you list Barbara Lee, since I recall from an "Opinion of" thread long ago that you expressed a positive view of her, because of her consistent opposition to foreign wars. Though of course, given her very socially progressive views on other issues like abortion and gay rights, I would suspect that there would be some tension. But otherwise, I agree with you. Green is indeed a clown-he reminds me of the late R&B singer Barry White, but in a unflattering way. Swalwell is one of the most arrogant and close-minded members of Congress.

Cotton, in my view, is a racist-his opposition to the First Step Act makes this clear, and he is definitely a warmonger. I agree with you about Omar and Tlaib, both of whom I believe to be anti-Semites. Waters is a deeply corrupt and deeply unethical individual, Hirono is arrogant and seems to have a bias against men and people of religiosity, King of course is a white nationalist and a conspiracy theorist, and Hunter (on his way out the door) is corrupt and now a convicted felon. Schiff of course, is "shifty" (Trump's nickname is a perfect descriptor of him!) and Hyde-Smith is definitely a reprehensible character.

At any rate, I have a few more questions for you: Out of the remaining Democratic candidates, who do you support the most? And would you vote for Joe Biden if he became the nominee (as it seems he will)?

At to the current Democratic candidates, my preference list:

1.  Bloomberg - the most qualified candidate
2.  Gabbard - the most anti-war candidate
3.  Klobuchar - the most acceptable compromise choice

If the election were held today, I would vote for Trump.  I view the whole impeachment effort as wrong and illegitimate, and I would vote for Trump today because I do not believe that these efforts ought to stand.  There is no evidence that Trump has obstructed justice; he has every right to fire the FBI director, and he has every right to refuse to cooperate with Congress and to allow the Courts to be the arbiter of his disagreements with Congress.  A President does not commit a crime when he does something he is lawfully entitled to do.

That is not to say that the investigations have provided reasons not to vote for Trump.  Trump has not always avoided the appearance of impropriety.  But we can say the same of Biden as well; he used his position to get his son a really great gig in Ukraine that he was, on its face, not really well qualified for.  That is what it is as well as all that Trump has done.  And the media quickly asserting that he's not done anything wrong is the worst sort of obvious bias in what has become a biased cesspool.  More may be revealed to change my opinion, but I do not believe Trump should be impeached, and I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to remove him from office. 

There has, IMO, been a cabal of folks who have cast a not-so-secret veto over Trump's Presidency, as if to say "HE is not allowed to win!'.  There was talk of impeachment before he even took office.  Facts don't matter to Trump's opponents, and the purpose of this current impeachment inquiry is simply to affect the campaign narrative.  Americans have an interest in not allowing the efforts of a Kangaroo Court (which Schiff's panel is) to stand.  And Democrats should consider how low the threshold for impeachment will be if Republicans choose to return the favor for a Democratic President. 

I like Biden.  Once, I would have said "yes" to voting for him.  I'd have to think about it now.  Although I'll admit that I enjoyed seeing him get into it with that fat guy; it was one of the more authentic moments of the campaign.

[Kingpoleon]

Are you aware that CrowdStrike - the DNC server people - is not “owned by a Ukrainian businessman” who interferes in the 2016 election - as Trump claimed? Instead it’s owned by George Kurtz, an American citizen born and raised, and Dmitri Alperovitch, a Russian-American immigrant. A RUSSIAN. Not a Ukrainian.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Are you aware that CrowdStrike - the DNC server people - is not “owned by a Ukrainian businessman” who interferes in the 2016 election - as Trump claimed? Instead it’s owned by George Kurtz, an American citizen born and raised, and Dmitri Alperovitch, a Russian-American immigrant. A RUSSIAN. Not a Ukrainian.

It's something I could care less about.

The impeachment of Trump is a farce.  If people don't like him, vote him out.  He has done nothing to warrant impeachment.  He has done things that people could rightly use as a reason to not vote for him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Does it get hot inside that tinfoil hat during the summer months?

Shhhhhhh!  You'll blow my secret!



I'm an Interim Underassistant Deputy Assistant Squad Commander now!  I'm making rank fast!  Don't blow it for me!

[Fuzzy Bear]

do you think rich people should have to give their money to lazy people?

I think you've made a God out of money.

I think you believe poor people are poor because they are lazy, and that's not a Godly attitude.

I believe that the wealthiest in our society have a moral and practical obligation to support a safety net for the less fortunate.  Scripturally, "To whom much is given, much is required."  On a practical level, the safety net for poor people, industrious and lazy alike, is what keeps the poor from rioting in our cities, and storming our institutions because they are homeless and starving to death.  That's the model of a third world country; a thin veneer of rich folks and poor, desparate masses who get less than lip service.

And many of the rich are lazy.  If we renamed Inheritance Taxes the Paris Hilton Tax rather than the Death Tax, they'd become far more popular.  My own belief is that if the rich want their loved ones to get more of their money, they should gift it to them in their lifetime.

can you tell me what Christian denomination you are? I've been Catholic, Mormon, and non-denominational, and all that trying to find God has done is convince me that if God exists, he hates me. I'm curious as to what denomination you are, because all experience I've had with God, religion, or spirituality has been bad, and only led me to pain and rejection. I'm wondering how you seem to have found an appreciation for any kind of spirituality.

My parents (drug users) are Catholic, and they sent me to Catholic school when I was a child using my grandfather's money. It was a horrible experience and my parents and Catholic school made me truly believe, as a little child, that I was defective and unlovable. I was frequently told that I would go to hell for asking questions, both at school and at home. The other students at Catholic school also threatened violence towards me simply for trying to participate in activities with them.

The non-denominational group was better than Catholicism, but only because the non-denominational church simply excluded me rather than actively trying to hurt me, like the Catholics did. I always felt "out of the loop" no matter how hard I tried to get in. Most of the people my age there had been homeschooled and such, I think I was an oddity to them.

The Mormons are scary. They took all my information then tried to force extreme changes on me to reduce my contact with non-Mormons, and all hell broke loose with them when I told them I was gay. They still stalk me to this day.

So in my mind, money looks pretty good as a God. Money won't damn me to hell for having been a child with issues at home, at least.

Money will not buy you Eternal Life.  Although money WILL buy happiness, to some extent.  People with money who are financially secure do have less stress and worry than people that don't.

Now I DO see your viewpoint, and I DO see the skittishness on cultish behaviors of the religious.  I was exposed to a religious cult in college.  Oddly enough, I met the lot of them in a bar.  The best part of them was that the cutest girl in the group had a crush on me.  Her goal was to get me to take a course for $100 dollars (a lot of money back then) from Victor Paul Weirwille.  They smoked cigarettes and spoke in tongues (which jaded my view of the Gifts of the Spirit for decades).  The girl was a hippie Jesus Freak type that wanted me to go with her to a music festival in Maine and listen to a group called Joyful Noise.  I was rather lonely then, and she was, indeed, cute, but the cult life wasn't my bag.

I would, however, encourage you to get alone with God and ask him what His deal is.  Ask Him if what the Bible says about Salvation and Jesus are true.  He will answer you and draw you to Him. 

[Kingpoleon]

Would you agree that the civil religion of American Christianity is unlike Biblical Christianity?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Would you agree that the civil religion of American Christianity is unlike Biblical Christianity?

I'm unsure what you mean.  My initial response to your question is "Somewhat".

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Fun question:  favorite TV series from each decade?

More serious:  what is one thing you wish you most wish you had done in your 20's that you hadn't?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fun question:  favorite TV series from each decade?

More serious:  what is one thing you wish you most wish you had done in your 20's that you hadn't?

1960s - Dragnet
1970s - Hawaii Five-0
1980s - 60 Minutes
1990s - Law and Order
2000s - NCIS
2010s - Criminal Minds

I wish I had gotten an undergraduate degree in business. 

[MarkD]

Here's a question I've asked a few other Atlas users under their "AMA."

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction: Would you support or oppose this? Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft.

My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal; I have shared this before on Forum Community and asked whether others would consider supporting it.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives.  
Appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Allow states to discriminate based on a person’s status as a non-citizen    

Appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow states to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
 – Keep the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent (the decision, but not the Court's opinion)
 – Keep the Saenz v. Roe precedent
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision and insist that it never be repeated  

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting state discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting state discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested?

[SingingAnalyst]

Who are some of your favorite Red avatars on this site?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What would the Democrats have to do to convince you to vote for their presidential candidate in 2020?

It's more what Trump would have to do to lose my vote.  Trump's falling back on the tax cut supply side economics and gutting Obamacare is NOT what I expected of Trump.  Perhaps I should have; it's those folks who voted for him despite his positions and those folks who are sticking with him.

Now there's much for me not to like as to the Democrats' social issues.  That's why it's tough to give me a checklist of what they'd have to do to get my vote; they'd probably never nominate a pro-life Democrat for President.

If the GOP goes on a massive Right-to-Work push, I'd probably vote straight Democratic.  If there is a needless Middle Eastern War, I'd probably vote Democratic.  If the Democrats choose to emphasize immigration and social issues, then I'd probably vote for Trump.  

I have not committed to vote for Trump in 2020 as of yet.

I'll clarify this  I have committed to vote not just for Trump, but straight Republican this year.  I've only done this once before in my life.

[Calthrina950]

What would the Democrats have to do to convince you to vote for their presidential candidate in 2020?

It's more what Trump would have to do to lose my vote.  Trump's falling back on the tax cut supply side economics and gutting Obamacare is NOT what I expected of Trump.  Perhaps I should have; it's those folks who voted for him despite his positions and those folks who are sticking with him.

Now there's much for me not to like as to the Democrats' social issues.  That's why it's tough to give me a checklist of what they'd have to do to get my vote; they'd probably never nominate a pro-life Democrat for President.

If the GOP goes on a massive Right-to-Work push, I'd probably vote straight Democratic.  If there is a needless Middle Eastern War, I'd probably vote Democratic.  If the Democrats choose to emphasize immigration and social issues, then I'd probably vote for Trump.  

I have not committed to vote for Trump in 2020 as of yet.

I'll clarify this  I have committed to vote not just for Trump, but straight Republican this year.  I've only done this once before in my life.

Why are you voting a straight Republican ticket? What has Trump done to win your support, given what has happened with the pandemic?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What would the Democrats have to do to convince you to vote for their presidential candidate in 2020?

It's more what Trump would have to do to lose my vote.  Trump's falling back on the tax cut supply side economics and gutting Obamacare is NOT what I expected of Trump.  Perhaps I should have; it's those folks who voted for him despite his positions and those folks who are sticking with him.

Now there's much for me not to like as to the Democrats' social issues.  That's why it's tough to give me a checklist of what they'd have to do to get my vote; they'd probably never nominate a pro-life Democrat for President.

If the GOP goes on a massive Right-to-Work push, I'd probably vote straight Democratic.  If there is a needless Middle Eastern War, I'd probably vote Democratic.  If the Democrats choose to emphasize immigration and social issues, then I'd probably vote for Trump.  

I have not committed to vote for Trump in 2020 as of yet.

I'll clarify this  I have committed to vote not just for Trump, but straight Republican this year.  I've only done this once before in my life.

Why are you voting a straight Republican ticket? What has Trump done to win your support, given what has happened with the pandemic?

Trump has managed this pandemic as well as anyone could, and very well if one factors in that Democratic Governors have taken their actions to deliberately tank the economy and create a fearful environment that would bolster their candidate who has no popularity of his own.  These Draconian lockdowns were not necessary, and they are indefensible when elected officials who threaten people with jail for going to church actively affirm people coming into the streets to "peacefully protest" during a pandemic.  As the "peaceful protesters" and rioters have received no criticism from Democratic officials, pandemic-wise, I see no reason why ordinary citizens who work, pay taxes, obey laws, and complied with the original lockdowns (often at great financial loss) should ever comply with these lying public officials ever again.  Whitmer, Newsom, et al, manipulated good people for selfish reasons, then gave special dispensation to the narcissistic virtue signalers and criminal scumbags in our streets.  The rebellion from the law abiding should be this:  Not without an act of the Legislature.

Trump has done what I expected him to do on trade on foreign policy.  Furthermore, Biden has not condemned the rioters, and that means directly condemning BLM and Antifa specifically, as they are the perpetrators of the violence.  Nor has Biden condemned the spineless Mayors in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Portland (for starters) who have simply refused to order police to protect their own citizens.  These riots have gone on and on because law enforcement has been directed to stand down by city mayors and state governors.

[Ferguson97]

What is your opinion on LGBT rights, and homosexuality in general?

I certainly believe that Scripture forbids any sexual activity outside a man and a woman married to each other.  I say this because there are people who assert otherwise.  I've covered that part of the question, and I would simply state that (A) this has never been suggested by any theologians that get any attention until recently, and (B) it's not sanctioned in Scripture.  I certainly think that the burden of proof is on those who would assert that sexual activity other than that between a man and his female wife is justified by Scripture.

As to public policy:  While I would not have voted for SSM if I were a legislator, I do not advocate it's repeal now.  I view it as a fait acompli, and the disruption to the lives of not just the married couples, but children involved, would be a horror show, and it would not be good for anyone involved.  The Court has spoken in Obergefell, and while I consider it an awful case of Judicial Activism, I consider the issue of SSM to be a personal moral issue at this point; if you enter into such a union, that's on you.

So I would understand from this that you believe that your personal opposition to same-sex marriage is not homophobic, because it is backed by your religion.

If someone's religion forbade interracial marriage, would you consider that person to be a racist?

[T'Chenka]

Can you show us on the doll where the Marxist touched you?

[Continential]

Why is Florida's education system so bad, I have a friend who moved to Florida and he's attending private schools because Florida's education system is bad?

[Kingpoleon]

I certainly believe that Scripture forbids any sexual activity outside a man and a woman married to each other.  I say this because there are people who assert otherwise.  I've covered that part of the question, and I would simply state that (A) this has never been suggested by any theologians that get any attention until recently, and (B) it's not sanctioned in Scripture.  I certainly think that the burden of proof is on those who would assert that sexual activity other than that between a man and his female wife is justified by Scripture.

You know, I’ve defended evangelicals for a long time. I have provided again and again cover and gone after people calling people like you bigoted and homophobic. But again and again, I find myself asking questions of people like you. You claim to take Scripture absolutely literally as absolutely written by God only in the hands of men.

Yet Scripture demands, very clearly and succinctly: the legal penalty for homosexuality ought to be death. Is that not immoral, not by Scripture, but because of the innate law on human hearts? Have you truly never read Scripture and felt that higher calling from your very soul: “Behold the laws of man in the words of man, only under the pretense of Me.”? Perhaps it is at risk of hellfire and damnation, but I cannot support God’s Scripture written by men when my very soul, made by God, cries out against it.

I do wish to make it clear that I do not approve of discrimination against LGBT due to sexual orientation in matters of employment (with the exception of working in ministry for a place of worship), housing, and health insurance.  I also don't approve of bullying or harassing persons for being LGBT at any age, period.  People have to go to school and they have to go to work.  I do believe that this is a pretty unremarkable statement, but I am stating this so there is no misunderstanding as to my position.

On a slightly less deep topic, do you believe private schools should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I certainly believe that Scripture forbids any sexual activity outside a man and a woman married to each other.  I say this because there are people who assert otherwise.  I've covered that part of the question, and I would simply state that (A) this has never been suggested by any theologians that get any attention until recently, and (B) it's not sanctioned in Scripture.  I certainly think that the burden of proof is on those who would assert that sexual activity other than that between a man and his female wife is justified by Scripture.

You know, I’ve defended evangelicals for a long time. I have provided again and again cover and gone after people calling people like you bigoted and homophobic. But again and again, I find myself asking questions of people like you. You claim to take Scripture absolutely literally as absolutely written by God only in the hands of men.

Yet Scripture demands, very clearly and succinctly: the legal penalty for homosexuality ought to be death. Is that not immoral, not by Scripture, but because of the innate law on human hearts? Have you truly never read Scripture and felt that higher calling from your very soul: “Behold the laws of man in the words of man, only under the pretense of Me.”? Perhaps it is at risk of hellfire and damnation, but I cannot support God’s Scripture written by men when my very soul, made by God, cries out against it.

The punishment for all sins is death.  By that, I don't mean that it's OK to stone someone for stealing a pack of gum from the convenience store, but it's still falling short of God's perfection, rendering every human unable to earn or deserve salvation from death.  That's only through Christ dying on the cross.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can you show us on the doll where the Marxist touched you?

I won't let PM2 have the satisfaction, lol.

[Kingpoleon]

I certainly believe that Scripture forbids any sexual activity outside a man and a woman married to each other.  I say this because there are people who assert otherwise.  I've covered that part of the question, and I would simply state that (A) this has never been suggested by any theologians that get any attention until recently, and (B) it's not sanctioned in Scripture.  I certainly think that the burden of proof is on those who would assert that sexual activity other than that between a man and his female wife is justified by Scripture.

You know, I’ve defended evangelicals for a long time. I have provided again and again cover and gone after people calling people like you bigoted and homophobic. But again and again, I find myself asking questions of people like you. You claim to take Scripture absolutely literally as absolutely written by God only in the hands of men.

Yet Scripture demands, very clearly and succinctly: the legal penalty for homosexuality ought to be death. Is that not immoral, not by Scripture, but because of the innate law on human hearts? Have you truly never read Scripture and felt that higher calling from your very soul: “Behold the laws of man in the words of man, only under the pretense of Me.”? Perhaps it is at risk of hellfire and damnation, but I cannot support God’s Scripture written by men when my very soul, made by God, cries out against it.

The punishment for all sins is death.  By that, I don't mean that it's OK to stone someone for stealing a pack of gum from the convenience store, but it's still falling short of God's perfection, rendering every human unable to earn or deserve salvation from death.  That's only through Christ dying on the cross.

Leviticus 20:23: “ If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Billy Graham is the only major American pastor* who took this and the idea of Biblical literalism seriously when he called for gay people to be stoned in the 80s.

Again I ask: Does the principle of Biblical inerrancy and literalism apply to this verse? Is this Scripture a higher authority than your very soul that rejects it?

*Since the 1800s.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I certainly believe that Scripture forbids any sexual activity outside a man and a woman married to each other.  I say this because there are people who assert otherwise.  I've covered that part of the question, and I would simply state that (A) this has never been suggested by any theologians that get any attention until recently, and (B) it's not sanctioned in Scripture.  I certainly think that the burden of proof is on those who would assert that sexual activity other than that between a man and his female wife is justified by Scripture.

You know, I’ve defended evangelicals for a long time. I have provided again and again cover and gone after people calling people like you bigoted and homophobic. But again and again, I find myself asking questions of people like you. You claim to take Scripture absolutely literally as absolutely written by God only in the hands of men.

Yet Scripture demands, very clearly and succinctly: the legal penalty for homosexuality ought to be death. Is that not immoral, not by Scripture, but because of the innate law on human hearts? Have you truly never read Scripture and felt that higher calling from your very soul: “Behold the laws of man in the words of man, only under the pretense of Me.”? Perhaps it is at risk of hellfire and damnation, but I cannot support God’s Scripture written by men when my very soul, made by God, cries out against it.

I do wish to make it clear that I do not approve of discrimination against LGBT due to sexual orientation in matters of employment (with the exception of working in ministry for a place of worship), housing, and health insurance.  I also don't approve of bullying or harassing persons for being LGBT at any age, period.  People have to go to school and they have to go to work.  I do believe that this is a pretty unremarkable statement, but I am stating this so there is no misunderstanding as to my position.

On a slightly less deep topic, do you believe private schools should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"  Galatians 3:13

Christ's Redemptive Work on the Cross has relieved us from the Curse of the Law.  We are not living under the ordinances of the Hebrews.  We are not required to stone people to death for adultery and fornication.

The Law does, however, serve the function of telling us what Sin is.  It exists to tell us what sin is and be our guide in that regard.  People ask why one's conscience can't be their guide, and the answer is that our consciences are too easily seared.  We rely on Scripture to tell us what Sin is.  We rely on the Holy Spirit for the strength to not sin. 

1 John 2:1  "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

Does this mean it's OK to sin that we are under Grace:

Romans 6:15  "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

God EMPOWERS believers to live according to His Word by the power of the Holy Ghost.  We are not slaves to the Law, but we ARE bondservants to Christ. 

Christianity is not Islam.  It does not command its followers to execute Judgement on sinners.  It DOES, however, call for Believers to live a life reflective of Christ, Himself. 

What does this mean for someone who says they are LGBTQ?

I do fear for the souls of persons who are gay and sexually active, because to be so is to live a life in rebellion to God's Word.  To maintain ongoing rebellion to God's Word does, at some point, imply a rejection of Christ's Lordship.  It is the reason I am so conflicted over Gay Couples getting married; I wish them to be happy and be loved, but I don't wish to give my approval to choosing ongoing rebellion against God's Word that may well have Eternal Consequences.  It goes to whether one is truly a Believer or not.  Believing in Christ means believing that He is who He says He is and He says that He Is Lord.  That's the issue; the implications of rebelling against God in an ongoing way.

One must rightly divide the Word.  This is a deep topic.  I know several Gay Male Christians who, to be right with God, have chosen to be celibate.  I do believe God honors that.  Scripture acknowledges that we will have corrupt thoughts, but we are to take every thought captive. 

I don't know if this answers the main question.  I hope it gives you a better idea.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What is your opinion on LGBT rights, and homosexuality in general?

I certainly believe that Scripture forbids any sexual activity outside a man and a woman married to each other.  I say this because there are people who assert otherwise.  I've covered that part of the question, and I would simply state that (A) this has never been suggested by any theologians that get any attention until recently, and (B) it's not sanctioned in Scripture.  I certainly think that the burden of proof is on those who would assert that sexual activity other than that between a man and his female wife is justified by Scripture.

As to public policy:  While I would not have voted for SSM if I were a legislator, I do not advocate it's repeal now.  I view it as a fait acompli, and the disruption to the lives of not just the married couples, but children involved, would be a horror show, and it would not be good for anyone involved.  The Court has spoken in Obergefell, and while I consider it an awful case of Judicial Activism, I consider the issue of SSM to be a personal moral issue at this point; if you enter into such a union, that's on you.

So I would understand from this that you believe that your personal opposition to same-sex marriage is not homophobic, because it is backed by your religion.

If someone's religion forbade interracial marriage, would you consider that person to be a racist?

No, I would not.

I want to make it clear that Scripture in no way forbids interracial marriage.  To say otherwise is a gross error and Wrongly Dividing the Word.  If people do this deliberately, they are in danger of having added to or subtracted from God's Word, something Revelation specifically warns people about.

Scripture DOES warn Christians against being unequally yoked to an unbeliever.  Scripture does not forbid Christians to marry unbelievers, but it certainly discourages it, and rightly so.  How frustrating must it be when Jesus Christ is the most important thing possible, and you can't share this with your spouse.  Or even worse, if you can't have agreement in how your children will be raised on this matter which is of Eternal consequence.

I don't believe that Believers should date Unbelievers.  I don't believe that Believers should marry Unbelievers.  I don't believe that Believers should have Unbelievers as business partners.  I don't believe that a Believer's Best Friend should be an Unbeliever.  This ensures that a person is equally yoked in the important voluntary relationships in their lives.

[darklordoftech]

How did you vote/would have you voted in each Presidential election from 1976 on?

[Fuzzy Bear]

How did you vote/would have you voted in each Presidential election from 1976 on?

1976 (D) Carter in primary, Carter in GE
1980 (D) Kennedy in primary, abstained for President in GE (voted straight Democratic otherwise)
1984 (D) Hart in primary, Mondale in GE
1988 (D) Dukakis in primary, Dukakis in GE (ugh)
1992 (D) Brown in primary, Clinton in GE
1996 (R) Buchanan in primary, Clinton (D) in GE
2000 (R) Keys in primary, Bush 43 in GE
2004 (R) No primary opponent, Kerry (D) in GE
2008 (R) Ron Paul in primary, McCain in GE
2012 (R) Santorum in primary, Obama (D) in GE
2016 (R) Trump in primary, Trump in GE
2020 (R) No primary opponent, Trump in GE (if election were held today)

I was too young to vote in 1972.  I wanted Muskie to win the nomination, and I wanted Scoop Jackson to stop McGovern.  I supported McGovern even though I knew he would end up a loser.  One of my first girlfriends was the ex-girlfriend of McGovern's local office manager, but that's another story.