For The Anti Homosexual Members

Noting that I am 100% pro SSM and always have been, to understand the argument the other side is making? They are claiming the IDEAL PERFECT family is the IDEAL PERFECT HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS family - then claiming it is better for children to have a parent of each gender.

The flaw, of course, is the virtual myth of the ideally perfect heterosexual family. Most aren't. So, on the flip side, why would the IDEALLY PERFECT HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS family not be a good thing? They claim that can not possibly exist by asserting it can't.

Anyway, you all carry on the endless God-says debate - as if that has ever changed 1 person's mind on either side.

 

I said nothing about judging people, I wrote that the Jesus left us with the Great Commandment - love God - and the Great Commission - spread the Word to all people. God wants all people to live according to His will, and He wants all people to go to Heaven which for Gentiles means accepting Jesus (Jews have the Abrahamic/Davidic Covenant, but they can still accept Jesus).

If you love God with all your heart and mind, then you obey His Word which means you live according to His guidelines.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" does not mean not to judge, or rebuke, just the opposite. If a person loves God but strays, then its definitely in their interest to be told they have strayed. "Love your neighbor" does not mean to accept your neighbors actions no matter how sinful.

Learn to read my posts, and the Bible.

 

Why would recent interpretations of the Bible be more relevant than the original? Its a myth that the New Testament has been misinterpreted and mistranslated through the centuries. Greek and Aramaic and obviously Hebrew are still well understood, the history and lifestyle of the Jews is well understood. The accepted New Testament documents were accepted because they were held by multiple churches and their authenticity accepted.

If you know Jewish history and Jewish life then you can understand the Bible in the context it was written, and if you take the time to actually read the Bible and have access to a teacher who understands Greek (and Hebrew if you are not Jewish) or the appropriate study material, there is very little in the Bible which is not clear.

Its only people who want to adapt the Bible to modern social trends that claim "recent writings" are more important then the eyewitness accounts and the contemporaries of Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul.

 

Well then, explain these eye witness passages away.

(For (*)(*)(*)(*) read c.o.c.k. - - the software running this forum has a dirty mind !)

Matthew Ch: 26.V:75 "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the (*)(*)(*)(*) crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly."

Mark. Ch:14. V:72' "And the second time the (*)(*)(*)(*) crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the (*)(*)(*)(*) crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Luke. Ch: 22.V:61. "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the (*)(*)(*)(*) crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

Matthew, Ch: 26.V:74. "Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the (*)(*)(*)(*) crew."

John. Ch:18. V:27. "Peter then denied again: and immediately the (*)(*)(*)(*) crew"

John. Ch: 13.V:38. " Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The (*)(*)(*)(*) shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice."

Luke. Ch: 22.V:60. "And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the (*)(*)(*)(*) crew."

As to addapting the bible to 'modern social trends' can I suggest a great deal of recent biblical studies have been an attempt to get closer to the real heart of Christianity. In fact that reminds me of a text I suggest you should at least give a cursery reading to :- The Dark Side of God: A Quest for the Lost Heart of Christianity by Douglas Lockhart.

 

You are going to eject the entire Bible because of slight variations on the wording of how many times a rooster crowed?

I have not read the book, but I looked up some of Lockhart's work and some interviews and read some parts of his online books, he believes Jesus was just a man, not divine, and the movement Jesus started was more a political movement and only had a religious aspect because Jesus was Jewish. Lockhart rejects Christianity, at times he treats it as a psychological issue and a mental fault in people who are Christians. He believes God is not defined by something as mundane as "religion" and that religion is a construct of people used to control other people.

I probably don't have all of his ideas in hand but I saw enough, his ideas are not new. His work is designed for non-Christians who are open to the idea that Jesus was just a man, almost everyone who is past the very basic step of deciding if Jesus is divine is beyond Lockhart's reach. I read enough of him, he's not going on my reading list.

 

Thank you for your interpretation of Lockhart. You are largely correct but wrong in your evaluation.
You are however tellling us more than you realise with you say:- " - - - - almost everyone who is past the very basic step of deciding if Jesus is divine is beyond Lockhart's reach.'" - - Beyond logic's reach is more like it.

 

No, its not a matter of logic. Lockhart starts from the position that Jesus is not divine, he does not prove that Jesus is not divine. I did not read anything of Lockhart's that would make a convincing argument that Jesus was not divine, so if a person has decided Jesus was divine then there is nothing in Lockhart to challenge that decision.

Lockhart's goal seems to be to prove that the Christian Church ( his target really seems to be the Catholic Church) is a human construct based upon misrepresentation of Jesus. His goal does not seem to be to prove Jesus was not divine, he just assumes that is true.

 

This could become a tedious sematic tennis match so I'll try and keep it simple.
Lockart's purpose, as I read it, is not to prove Jesus in not divine, but to illucidate how Jesus status as human was elevated to that of divine by his followers and the church. As to claiming his target was the Roman church he draws attention to a number of groups outside of the roman church equally involved in the early moulding of the religion.

 

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

RUN DON RUN

 

It's interesting how so many with your perspective focus on the physical aspects of homosexuality ignoring anything like love and assume 'taking it up the rear' is what all gays do. It's not, and your fascination with the act tells us more about you than you really want us to know, and more about yourself than your really want to face.

So, all homosexuals have wasted their lives? Can't be bothered giving you the history lesson here which you obviously need.

Your mindless interpretation of scripture is one thing, your total lack of familiarity with the Christ's central message is another.

What, the freedom to impose your bigotry on others?

Who asked for them? The standard hope of queer people is equality, nothing special about it.

A phrase which covers a multitude of sins.

And what a dreary colourless world that would be. Besides, you'd all have to find another witch to burn, wouldn't you?

 

I don't remember asking to be psychoanalyzed by an internet amateur psychologist.

Whether or not homosexuals waste their lives is up to them. If it is spent on advocating
homosexuality I would call that a waste.

Christ's central message is to repent. He had many more messages such as, love thy
enemy, turn the other cheek, love the sinner but hate the sin, love God.

Who are you to call me a bigot when you have such a disdain for my religious beliefs
and religious freedom? Seems clear who the bigot is.

There is nothing equal about being homosexual so to demand equality is futile. You
can't be equal for in order to be equal you would have to be heterosexual.

Religious freedom covers a multitude of sins? I don't know what kind of doublespeak
that is or what it is supposed to imply.

What a dreary colorless world it would be indeed if the anti-Christian bigots had their
way and eliminated Christianity which is their ultimate goal. You can portray people
who only want to be left alone to practice their religious beliefs as "witch hunters"
and demonize them by implying that they will always persecute people by seeking
out new targets, but that only speaks to your own prejudices and your vision of
others as evil. You are the ones seeking out Christians for persecution, for a
witch hunt, and then have the audacity to accuse us of the crimes for which you
are guilty.

 

Like yes, there are Christians, Messianic Christians (including some of Jewish ethnicity), then everyone else going down the scale from there.

If I didn't think Christianity was "all that" then why on earth would I want any other faith to be raising kids???

At least wolves wouldn't be as likely to rape the child.

AS my stats have already shown (that you are prejudiced against) males are more likely rape children, and gays are more likely to commit sexual assaults. So with two gay males raising a child the risk is too unreasonable.

 

Seems like you are anti-traditional family. Divorce does create more problems, and step-parents are more likely to commit sexual assaults:

Based on these theories, it could be assumed that stepchildren are more likely to be abused by parents than biological children. In fact, some research has provided evidence of a 5-fold increase in risk of child abuse for step-children compared to biological children.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/stepchildren-family-parents-abuse-0409132

But one can look at all the violent inner-cities where traditional married families raising their own biological children are less than 20%: Such as Detroit, Baltimore, Flint and other Leftist-Dem strongholds. Morally debased people and cultures show the effects of decades of decline from the gold standard of traditional families.

As for Trump on his third marriage to a super model---at least he had his kids inside each marriage at the time. And all his kids seem to be doing well. Better than having Ellen Degenerate or others like her raising kids.

 

Other researchers differ:

Of 77 adult children of homosexual parents who volunteered for three different investigations, at least 23 (30%) were currently homosexual: twelve (55%) of 22 daughters and three (21%) of fourteen sons of lesbians; five (29%) of seventeen daughters and three (17%) of eighteen sons of gays; none of six sons with both a gay and a lesbian parent. At least 25 (32%) were currently heterosexual. Of the ten with transsexual parents, one of nine daughters was currently lesbian, one was currently heterosexual, and one was transsexual. The son’s sexual preference was not reported. These findings suggest that parents’ sexual inclinations influence their children’s.

Schumm is considerably more circumspect in how he uses Cameron’s research, but he did publish a 2000 article in Psychological Reports, Paul Cameron’s favorite publication outlet, defending Cameron’s research methods against Dr. Gregory Herek’s criticisms. Schumm is also listed as a member of Cameron’s “Editorial and Scientific Review Board” for the EJSSB.
In the trial, Schumm used data from his recent Psychological Reports article to claim that about 19 percent of children raised by gay parents are likely to become gay, compared with 4 percent of children with straight parents. Testifying for Frank Gill, the gay foster father, Susan D. Cochran, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at UCLA, accused Schumm of cooking his data.

http://www.queerty.com/gay-parents-...e-gay-kids-says-questionable-science-20101018

 

Your assumption you're dealing with an amateur is mere presumption.

So, now it's your amateur psychoanalysis that's determined I spend my life advocating homosexuality.

Well, you've got some way to go then.

Why should anyone respect a twisted, sado-masochist theology?

So, simply by being born heterosexual you're more than any homosexual. How easy it that!
Instant virtue, a much more convenient idea than original sin.

So now all religions are equal?

Only want to me left alone to practice their religious beliefs?
How I wish that was the case. It isn't.

 

Nail meet head.

And the lord sayeth to his peeps: "be ye not curtain-twitchers for I hath remanded a special place in torment for the fondlers of the Draylon (tm) )"

 

I can read your posts just find- and I have read the Bible many times.

I note that once again- you do not actually quote Jesus fully

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Nothing about judging whether your neighbor is a Christian or not at all. Jesus commands Christians to be responsible for themselves- to love God- and their neighbors- what he doesn't do is tell bakers not to bake cakes in his name.

Even if Jesus does want you to go around telling non-Christians that they are being sinful- Jesus doesn't say anything about telling bakers not to bake a cake.

Just as he doesn't ever attack homosexuality- like he does attack divorce and remarriage. I have yet to hear of any bakery refusing to sell a wedding cake because the couple might be a second marriage.

 

Once again- you prefer the surety that children will be eaten by wolves- than the risk that a child will be raped by two gay fathers?

I have yet to see any 'stats' produced by you.

As I pointed out- yes- men are virtually all of the child sexual predators. You only appear to care about this when you can label the fathers 'gay'- even though between 69%-90% of all child molestation happens to girls.

IF your concern was actually about protecting children from child sexual molestation- then you would be opposed to any man adopting any child- ever.

If you concern was actually about protecting children from child sexual molestation.

 

You think I am 'anti-family' because I point out that 'traditional families' were never any predictor of the safety of children? I am a happily married husband and father- with a great family- and I am all about parents being good parents- which is why I believe it is so important that same gender couples can legally marry, to provide their children with the same legal protections my child has, and that children abandoned by their biological parents have as big of a pool of qualified adoptive parents as possible- which includes single mom's and single dad's or lesbian couples or gay couples, along with couples like my wife and I.

Every adoptive parent should(and I believe is) be screened- and parents who can't pass the screenings should not be allowed to adopt- but if they are qualified- then I am thrilled that a child gets another chance after being abandoned by his or her own parents.

 

Hack, hack, hack, hack, hack.

So again, more hate, more lack of self awareness.

 

Really?

How are his kids doing better than Ellen Degeneres' kids- exactly?

I am very curious.

Meanwhile- I am glad that Trump's kids turned out apparently well- which just goes to show- that kids can turn out well even when their father is remarrying every 10 years or so.



Ivana Zelníčková (m. 1977–91)
Marla Maples (m. 1993–99)
Melania Knauss (m. 2005)

Children with Zelníčková:
Donald Trump, Jr. (born 1977)
Ivanka Trump (born 1981)
Eric Trump (born 1984) (he was 5 years old when his parents divorced)

with Maples:
Tiffany Trump (1993 - two months before they married- divorced when Tiffany was 6)

with Knauss:
Barron Trump

Yay for 'traditional family values'!

 

Did you even read the article?

Says Schumm: “I’m trying to prove that it’s not 100 percent genetic.”

Did you read how Schumm testified in the Florida adoption case?

Tell me more again how you would prefer that wolves eat these two boys instead of these two men adopting them:

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/floridas-case-against-gay-adoption/Content?oid=2256857
On Dec. 11, 2004, John and James (as they're called in court papers) escaped hell. Their parents had all but abandoned them. The boys — one 4 years old, the other 4 months old — suffered from scalp ringworm. The baby had an ear infection. Medicine sat in their house, unopened and expired.

When Florida Department of Children and Families agents removed the kids, John was wearing a dirty, adult-size T-shirt and sneakers four sizes too small. DCF officials learned that the older boy had been his half-brother's caretaker for weeks, if not longer.

DCF turned to Frank Martin Gill, a 43-year-old flight attendant with a master's degree in public health and a bachelor's degree in psychology. Gill had fostered seven children before, and he agreed to take the boys in, even though he and his domestic partner — identified in court records as Tom Roe Sr. — planned to move to Georgia. The couple, who had been together five years, thought the arrangement was temporary.

Over the next few weeks, Gill learned how far behind John, the older boy, had fallen. He'd never seen a book. He couldn't identify colors, count or even hold a pencil. He hoarded food at dinnertime, as if he were afraid he'd never be fed again. For a month, he didn't even speak.

But as time passed, both boys acclimated to their new family. Gill and Roe became "papi" and "daddy." They were, as one caseworker later put it, "model foster parents."

By July 2006, courts had terminated the parental rights of the boys' parents. John and James were officially wards of the state. They became two of the 1,000 kids that DCF has at any given time awaiting adoption.

In other states, Gill would be a natural adoptive parent. But he's gay, and in Florida, adoption by gay parents is illegal.

Gill sued. On Nov. 25, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman struck down the law in a sharply worded 53-page ruling. She called it "illogical to the point of irrationality." The state attorney general's office, helmed by former Orlando congressman Bill McCollum, immediately promised to appeal.

At the four-day October trial, the state called only two witnesses. Both testified that gays aren't fit parents because they're mentally unstable. They were paid $87,000 collectively for their trouble.

The state's star witness, clinical psychologist Dr. George Rekers, is a Southern Baptist minister who founded the right-wing Family Research Council and has nearly 30 years of virulently anti-gay writings to his credit. The other witness, Dr. Walter Schumm, is a Kansas State University family studies professor who uses "statistics to highlight the truth of the Scripture."

Rekers and Schumm stake out religiously rooted anti-gay positions that run counter to the research of organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others, who say there's no problem with gay parents.

"These people are religious radicals," says Robert Rosenwald, one of the ACLU attorneys who represented Gill.

The state's case had nothing to do with John and James' well-being. Florida never challenged Gill's abilities as a parent or rebutted the idea that removing the boys from his care would be emotionally devastating to them. Instead, it defended the law's discriminatory nature and bigoted underpinnings (see sidebar, page 1.

And to do that, they hired two men who aren't afraid to conflate science and religion.

Rekers is the ideal expert for a state that has long codified its moral objection to gays adopting kids. In court, he testified that even if scientific data conclusively proved that children of gay parents do just as well as children of straight parents, he'd still want gay adoption banned.

He's written such books as The Christian in an Age of Sexual Eclipse (1981), Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality (1982) and Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity (1982).

In the latter, Rekers writes that "gay liberationists" are plotting to "legalize pedophilia." In Growing Up Straight, he writes: "Homosexual activists seek to lure our children into a deceptive and `destructive` fantasy world that ignores the obvious physical, social and moral boundaries of sexual oppression." Also: "When scholars disregard divine law, they deliberately suppress truth and result in foolish and futile speculations."

In court, he testified that the state shouldn't allow gays to adopt because, as a demographic group, they have higher rates of depression, suicide, drug use, relationship instability and psychiatric problems than the population as a whole. Thus, he says gay parents put the children they raise at risk for any number of developmental maladies. In his view, those factors make gays ill-equipped to be good parents.

He dismisses numerous studies suggesting that children of gay parents are no worse off than those of straight parents, saying the methodology of such studies is flawed and the researchers who perform them are politically motivated.

"Of course," he tells Orlando Weekly, "most of the people conducting those studies carefully select `gay` parents who are not depressed."

In court, Rekers said that he favored removing children from any gay home in favor of a straight home, even if the child had been there 10 years.

Placing children in households with homosexuals is like placing them with the blind, or perhaps Al-Qaida, he explains in the article.

In a Journal of Psychology and Theology article, Schumm explained that "with respect to the integration of faith and research, I have been trying to use statistics to highlight the truth of the Scripture."

To Judge Lederman's dismay, the state didn't call any witnesses to talk about the children's rights during the trial. "The child is absent from this argument," she wrote.

By contrast, lawyers for Gill, the adoptive father, had plenty to say. Dr. David Brodzinsky, a California developmental psychologist who specializes in adoption and foster-care cases, assessed James and John in their foster home and told the court that removing them would be emotionally devastating. The state never challenged that assertion.

Ronald Gilbert, the guardian ad litem appointed to look out for the children's rights, also testified that removing them would be "against their manifest best interests. I think it would be tragic. These kids were subject to abuse and neglect, and this would add legal abuse and neglect to their placement, and their mental and physical well-being." The state didn't cross-examine Gilbert.

Yves Francois, the adoption supervisor for the Center for Family and Child Enrichment — a DCF subcontractor that acts as an adoption agency — testified that Gill and Roe met all the criteria for adoption but one, their sexual orientation. If their adoption request was denied, he said, the CFCE would keep looking, and in all likelihood, the siblings would end up being separated. To date, no one else has applied to adopt James and John.

In her ruling, Lederman dismissed testimony from Rekers and Schumm. Schumm, she wrote, "admitted that he applies statistical standards that depart from conventions in his field."

"From the outset, the state was in a weird position," says Rosenwald, the ACLU attorney. "It only got more complicated when they tried to find experts. They were looking for serious scientists. They were told no serious scientists would testify on their behalf."

Indeed, Rekers and Schumm stand diametrically opposed to the position of the American Psychological Association, which in 2004 put out a statement in support of gay parenting.

 

My concern is with the entire gay/lesbian/transgender group of sexual deviants. Their perverse lifestyle, is surprise, going to lead to more of them sexually abusing those who are around them:

http://www.bu.edu/today/2011/lesbians-gays-bisexuals-at-increased-risk-for-sexual-assault/

Added to the fact that men do most acts of pedophilia, having two gay men adopt a child is as foolish as letting a pack of wolves adopt a child.

Thinking a male father inside a traditional nuclear family is not needed, is just more Marxist hoopla. The results speak for themselves in the hoods of Chicago, Baltimore and and Detroit.

 

Sure having a tradition family is going to help keep crime low. Just look at any urban wasteland here in the US, and look at what percentage of households are single parent.

 

Except of course- what you cite doesn't support that at all- does it?

lesbian and bisexual women may be up to 3 times as likely as heterosexual women to report having been sexually assaulted in their lifetime, and gay men appear to be about 15 times as likely as heterosexual men to report the same.

Since homosexuals are more likely to have been sexually assaulted- you claim that means that they will sexually abuse other children? You are blaming the victims of rape- and calling them future rapists? Really? Really?