For The Anti Homosexual Members

Where are the results from kids being raised by two Homosexual men?

Are you saying Trump's kids would have been better off if Trump was on his 3rd Gay Husband with all his kids from surrogate moms???

 

Again- men do indeed almost all acts of child sexual molestation- which if you were consistent- and actually were arguing about protecting children from the risk of child sexual abuse- would mean you would prefer any all female household to any household with any males.

But you don't.

You actually prefer a household containing a man- to a household with two women- EVEN though statistically- the child raised in the home with a man is more likely to be sexually abused than the child raised in a household with two women.

And again- you still think that letting wolves eat children is preferable to the risk of two gay men raising a child.

Tell us again about how wolves are your preference for these two boys?


Orlando Weekly

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.

 

I have no problem with a family having a father- or two fathers. I am all for it- two parents provide more emotional and financial support than a single parent.

But here you contradict yourself- you say that a child needs a 'male father'- but then you are appalled when a child would have 'two male fathers'- because of the sexual risk men pose to children.

IF your concern is about the risk of sexual molestation of children- then you would prefer a household with no men in the household- but you are okay with the risk- as long as the couple are 'heterosexual'- despite the known risk from stepfathers.

- - - Updated - - -

I am saying that Trump is a great example of 'traditional family values'- he has been married 3 times, has left his marriages while his children are still small children- he is a sterling example of the traditional family in action.

Good thing he has lots of money.

 

So the danger is single parents.

The spiral continues each year. Married couples with children have an average income of $80,000, compared with $24,000 for single mothers.

“We have one class that thinks marriage and fatherhood is important, and another which doesn’t, and it’s causing that gap, income inequality, to get wider,” Mr. DiCaro said.

Clearly then you are supportive of those gay couples who want to provide a household with two parents.....

 

Now look, if you are SO intent on having non-biased studies and researchers---then why do you keep using opinions of the APA????

Here are some of the the ultra-Left, ultra-political positions of a supposed group of "professionals:"

Therapy Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth
Statements of professional consensus regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.
Statements of Professional Consensus

The following are the statements of professional consensus regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression that were developed during the July 2015 APA consensus convening.
For more information, please refer to SAMHSA's report “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth.”
Guiding Principles
Behavioral health professionals respect human dignity and rights. The foundational ethical principle of "self-determination" requires that children and adolescents be supported in their right to explore, define and articulate their own identity. The principles of “justice” and “beneficence and nonmaleficence” require that all children and adolescents have access to behavioral health treatments that will promote their health and welfare. Children and adolescents have the right to participate in decisions that affect their treatment and future. Behavioral health professionals respect human diversity and strive to incorporate multicultural awareness into their work.
These guiding principles are based upon the codes of ethics for the professional fields of psychology, psychiatry and social work (American Psychiatric Association, 2013b; American Psychological Association, 2010; National Association of Social Workers, 200.

Poverty and Socioeconomic Status
Activity Updates
Smoking Ban Urged for Public Housing APA Joins Other Groups to Protect Funding for Federal Homelessness Programs APA Supports Proposed Minimum Wage Hike APA Calls on Congress to Support Working Parents and Caregivers Broad Coalition Urges Congress to Prioritize Funding for State Social Services APA Continues Advocacy on Employment Issues APA Advocates, Mobilized Grassroots Around Federal Poverty Research APA Signs Letter Supporting Services for Homeless Children and Youth Psychologists Advocate for Family-friendly Federal Legislation APA Invited, Participates in White House Summit on Working Families APA Hosts Briefing on Discrimination Against the Unemployed

Ethnic Minority Affairs
Activity Updates
APA Voices Concern to White House Regarding Recent Deportations
Funding Boon for Minority Fellowship Program in Mental Health Overhaul Legislation APA Sends Comments Supporting Nondiscrimination in Health Plans APA Urges Obama Administration to Reform Detention Policies Impacting Immigrant Children and Families APA Continues Advocacy to Eliminate Racial Profiling APA Sends Letter of Support for Voting Rights Legislation APA Offers Psychological Expertise to President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing APA Submits Testimony Highlighting Psychology’s Insights into Police-Community Relations APA Promotes Legislative Advocacy During Black Church Conference Sign-on Letter Urges Shift Away From Detention of Immigrant Children and Families APA Submits Testimony on Militarization of Police Forces

Human Rights Issues
International violence, global human rights accountability, domestic issues such as solitary confinement, and supporting ratification of UN Conventions.

http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx

These biased clowns in the APA are hardly any more professional and scientific than Bigfoot Cryptozoologists.

In fact the APA in their last DSM tried to list pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" before changing their minds again.

So, with your love of political bias injected into science, would you want the Man Boy Love Association to do a study on pedophilia???

 

We both agree, we just put the emphasis on different parts of Lockhart's thesis.

 

You are very selective in your reading and understanding of the Bible. I don't believe for one second that you have actually read and studied the Bible even once.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who was sued for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, also refuses to provide his product to other functions he sees as against his religion, such as he not making Halloween goodies. Phillips did not single out gays, its just that gays are so hateful that they singled out Phillips.

 

When did I use the opinion of the APA?

 

Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year.

In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women.

 

Come on, guys, Jesus and Mohammad and Moses, three of the very most admired people in world history, never ever once spoke up for gay rights, so of course people are going to hate gays with a passion (and the Bible and Islamic texts both saying to KILL gays doesn't help!) As a Modern Secular Humanist I of course love everybody (including gays), so I can't support Christianity or Islam or Judaism in that regard. Until Jesus/Allah/god summon the moral courage to come down and apologize to us for teaching hatred/death to gays, we hold them partly responsible for the incredible hatred of innocent people (gays.)

 

Well said apart from the fact we can never be certain what Jesus taught about male/male love, if he ever did.
It's his followers, especially Paul, who should come back and apologise but on second thoughts I don't think I'd want that mad misogynist walking the planet again.

 

Because so much stuff would obviously have been lost or corrupted or added to over the 40 - 80 YEARS that it took for the NT to mostly be written down at first, we can both agree that at least Jesus should have often said "write this down...." before an important speech to his followers. That's just common sense - but Jesus didn't seem to have any.

 

What commandment is that exactly? I see no commandments that say "make sure everyone is a Christian". I don't care what other people are at all, it's their business not mine.

Your definition of Christian might be to make other Christians, but my church is more about helping those in need. I don't "bring people to Christ" I bring them Christ's love, there's a difference. We have an old building that needs updates but doesn't get them because we believe our money can be better used. We feed the hungry, help the homeless, support environmental stewardship, help the elderly, and we do all this and more with no strings attached. We believe it's more important to model Christ-like behavior than to go around making more Christians for the sake of making more Christians.

What does "saved" even mean?

Your assumption that Jesus would not celebrate gay marriage takes a lot of ego. Being that he never mentions gay marriage, or even homosexuality for that matter. Did Jesus simply subscribe to any old thing in the bible? No, he had his own thoughts, beliefs and drive. If he personally didn't mention it, I think it's safe to say we don't know how he would feel about it.

 

Ok, then what did he personally say about the sin of homosexuality? As I recall he said nothing about it. And even if he did, how do you deal with the fact that not everyone is a Christian or cares what Jesus said?

Another point, "sin" meant something very different 3,000+ years ago than it does now. Should the concept of sin evolve as society evolves? To me owning slaves, selling children, committing rape, driving drunk, bullying someone on the Internet, stealing someone's identity and tearing our environment apart for profit are a few examples of what could be considered sin that isn't mentioned in the bible. Does sin never evolve? Are we morally governed by a 3,000 year old document for all eternity?

 

You have a completely incorrect view of Christianity. You are not saved by worldly deeds no matter how noble, go don't gain salvation by earthly charity, nowhere does the Bible or Jesus say that its all about good worldly deeds. You gain salvation by accepting Jesus as savior.

Good works follow salvation, and are important, but "good works" are much more than material charity, its also spiritual works such spreading the Word of God, praying, bringing people to Jesus, and living as God intended people live - to the best of our ability, not sinning and not condoning sin in others.

Jesus left people with the Great Commandment - love God - and the great Commission - spread the Word of God to all people. You obviously ignore those.

LOL, no, it takes a lot of ego to assume that because Jesus was silent on a matter that he accepted it. Jesus did not mention child abuse, shall we assume he was for that as well? Its much more likely that if Jesus overturned a deeply help belief in Jewish history and declared His support for homosexuality, then that would have been recorded as it would be big news.

Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy, He was the culmination of a roughly 3,000 year old story. He most certainly did subscribe to the Old testament, Jesus quoted from it often and knew it intimately. You have not read the Bible.

 

As I have written repeatedly, if you are not a Christian then you are not bound by Christian rules. If you are not a Christian, then be gay, commit adultery, curse God, or whatever your personal belief system says is acceptable.

Christianity is not Judaism in which people try to identify every single sinful act. Sin is living contrary to God's will, sin is generally defined with some specific examples, and people have to be smart enough to figure it out.

In Jesus time, there were people He called the Nicolaitans, who believed that Jesus teachings should evolve to accommodate the predominate social trends in current society. That's what you are argueing for. Jesus said he hated the Nicolaitans. Paul, Peter and Jesus warned us there would be people who would try to change the understanding of God's will in order to accommodate their human earthly desires.

Christianity is defined by the Bible, as written in the 1st Century AD and earlier. If you don't like what it says, if you think its out of date and wrong, then don't follow it. You can pick and choose what you like and add it to your own ideas, or join a church that does the same - but don't call it Christianity because that's not what you have.

 

I still don't know what being "saved" means. What is being saved exactly? Saved from going to hell? Or from not going to heaven? Saved from what?

The issue I have with simply accepting Jesus as your savior making everything ok is that allows you to do whatever you want, then just accept Jesus as savior and suddenly you're off the hook. To me doing good deeds and contributing positively is far better.

I had a client that was an evangelical Christian ministry who would go to poor communities in Africa on mission trips. They would set them up with clean well water, but only if they agreed to "accept Jesus as their savior" by allowing a church to be built and if they tithed. Bribing poor people with something essential to survival isn't Christian, it's evil. Sure they recruited more Christians, but I think Jesus would be ashamed of how they did it.

 

And here we come up against the immoral absurdity at the heart of many forms of christianity. You can ignore your fellow humans in their time of need, invade their country with God on your side but so along as you accept Jesus as saviour - well you're saved. Rome turned this notion into a nice little money earner with paid indulgences and confession but that's a side issue.

 

Being "saved" means accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that entails several things. First, it means your sins are forgiven, both past and future, which means you are also part of the family of God and will go to Heaven. Second, it means a person recognizes they have been living in sin, have repented of their sinful ways, and live as best as possible in the way God intended (which includes the "good works" you mention).

A person who is not "saved" does not go to Heaven and is removed from God's presence, in the New Testament its called the second death.

Accepting Jesus is in the heart, its transformative, its not simply uttering the words. A person who is saved receives the Holy Spirit, they desire to do God's work and to spread the Word to others so that all people can be given the opportunity to be saved.

God wants everyone to be saved, but He does not force it upon anyone. You have probably heard that Jesus "stands at the door and knocks" - He knocks, asking for permission, waiting to see if the door will be opened and He is invited inside, He does not kick the door open.

That's repeated all over the Bible, from Ezekial 18:23 (Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?) to John 3:17 (For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him).

Doing good deeds is the result of being saved, there is no salvation without resulting good deeds. James wrote "Faith without works is dead", meaning that good works automatically follows salvation, a person who claims salvation but whose actions do not bear the fruit of salvation has not been saved.

There are all kinds of mistakes in the name of Christianity. Some people may be well intentioned but wrong, some people use religion or nationalism or politics to further their own agenda. That's why its important to know the Bible, so a person knows what is expected of her, and can (hopefully) tell the false teacher and prophet from the real teacher and prophet.

In your example, the client was forcing and bribing people to say the words but they are not really saved. I agree with you that Jesus would be ashamed. Salvation is voluntary, not forced upon people. Bribery, forced conversion, forced tithing, are all clearly stated to be sinful activities.

 

Judge not that ye shall be judged.

 

Except of course that none of the OT stuff is relevant to Christians and the NT stuff doesn't say what you think it does.

 

look i could care less about what queers do,just do not call in marriage,marriage has been between a man and a woman for over a thousand years.the supreme court is writing legestion form the bench,they will be next.


RUN DON RUN

 

What is the historic traditional definition of marriage is polygamy, plus that is Biblical as well.

 

What is laughable is that you think this is really an issue for Trump.

 

no i do not thank this is an issue for TRUMP,but it must be with you.
again i could care less about queers.

RUN DON RUN