References from the Word about Sodom and Gomorah, "tired and old",
Try telling that to G-d at the "bema"..... :(-->
Archleolgists have found the site of Sodom and Gomorah and there are millions of pieces of sulphur and tar that were tested.
They had in the past been taken to the temperature of over 4,0000 degrees!!
Where are you going to find an "oven" to cover an entire city to do that?
G-d did
It came from the heavens
That is really hot!!!
If you throw a match to a piece of it, it will explode, with a noxion gas that will kill you if you are too close!!
Tired? -->
Old? -->
HOT!!!! :o-->
This has nothing to do with LCM!!
I left before he went on his apparent tireade agaisnt homosexualls.
This is not a "tireade against homosexualls".
I do NOT want them teaching my chilrden or grandchildren.
They will come home, they ALWAYS DO, we hear it all the time, with questions about the teacher and his "partner: etc.
It is telling what the word sais. It is a no no.
We are to be kind and loving to everyone, but we do not let evil take over our country, we are not supposed to anyway....
Would you all think it was OK to have Muslim terrorsit SUPPORTERS teach your children?????
The little kids in Muslim countries are taught from Kindergarten to hate Jews.
I had a air condition repairman come to my home and he did not do what the contract said. He was a supporter no doubt, He made reference to Muslim customs coming over and taking over etc. from things he was saying etc, he thought that since I was a blond woman that I was a second class citizen and he could lie to me HA HA HA
I called Sears on his ***.
OH that's a different subject sorry.
(Pat Robertson interviewed a FORMER Muslim terrorist that got saved beleived in Jesus (Yashua) and told of how they are trained since day one that is to GOOD to hate)......
The reasosn Yashau did not talk about homosexuality, perhaps because it was already covered quite extensivley previously in OT.
quote:If a child raised in a gay home is not faring well, can you point me to the research that indicates it is because of "stigma," or the lack of parental rights of one of the partners, rather, than, say, an innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender?
Likewise, can you point me to the research that indicates that the child is not faring well because of an "innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender?" We simply don't know. What we have already allowed, however, is to have a single parent give birth or adopt.
I am more than aware of the emotional problems that children have when their parents divorce. The stress involved is second only to the death of a parent. In the exit counseling session I went through in 2001, it was re-iterated, but emphasized that if one of the partners was abusive, then divorce was preferred over children suffering with abuse and tension. If the divorce happens, then it is preferred to have two loving parents who can put aside their differences and put the children's needs first.
That is what I was talking about. Two reasonable people with equal legal say, discussing what would be in the best interest of the child. I think two people would be preferable over one. And I speak as a single parent.
And I daresay, there are many children of adoption and gay families (or who have grandparents for parents, or other untraditional arrangement) who do just fine, and do not feel a pressing need to find their birth parents.
quote:Would you all think it was OK to have Muslim terrorsit SUPPORTERS teach your children?????
Well of course not, but what has that got to do with this? If you would take the word terrorist out of your question, my answer would be "No, I wouldn't care"...
I wouldn't want terrorist homosexual supporters teaching my children either, but I didn't think that's what this thread was about... what brought terrorist into this?
I honestly don't mean to be nitpicky, but you are the one who implied that children raised in same-sex unions don't fare well, not me. I responded to it as a conditional. You offered it as a given. You say it's because of "stigma" and the lack of two adults to jointly make decisions. As far as asking me to prove the natural process of bonding and separation that occurs during the journey from childhood into adulthood, between parents and children, all of that is covered in Psychology 101. You are the one who is presenting a radical change in those theories, and asking others to accept those changes based on your assertions, without offering a shred of research to back up your claims. You say "we simply don't know." I disagree. I think there is a lot we do know. The part that we "simply don't know" is the long-term emotional and developmental effects on children raised in same-sex unions. So why do you say that this arrangement is preferable, when at this point it is still experimental?
Let's face it, conservative Christian doctrine relating to homosexuality simply doesn't "line up" with life's experiences or reality.
I too was taught the hateful, frothing at the mouth, mean spirited, self righteous, homophobic doctrines of condemnation. About the demons that left one's mind void of judgement. I recall the tone in wierwille's voice as he called them the "lowest of the low".
Sorry, it just doesn't float. I know plenty of scum bag heterosexuals who have no business being around children, let alone raising them. I also know plenty of gays that are kind, responsible, caring, loving, honest people who I'm sure would do a wonderful job at raising kids.
Of course it works both ways. The point being is that there are good and bad heteros and there are good and bad homos. Sexual orientation should not really be a factor, anymore than the color of one's hair or what country your grandparents immigrated from.
Unless of course we should simply eliminate the part in the constitution that seperates "church and state". Personally, I don't feel that "denominational doctrines" should be the criteria for civil law. The operative ideas in formulating civil law should include pluralism and tolerance.
In reality, I am a heterosexual who is repulsed by the notion of two men "being involved". I find that homosexual behavior goes against my own preferences and sensibilities but nevertheless, as an American, I must insist on equal rights and equal protection for all citizens.
Like you, I have a problem with the "I wouldn't want a homo teaching my children" argument. If he was a professional, you would never know if he was homosexual or not, because sex would just never come up! I also would not want my child taught by a hetero who says, "Boy, lemme tell you about the piece I got last night...." He should be fired, for his conduct, not his orientation.
Dear laleo,
Sorry, I will try and make it clear one more time; otherwise, just chalk it up to my Lyme brain being unable to put it together for you. I am trying to say that a child may feel like an outsider for only having only one legal parent, for not having wedding pictures to look at, for having no space on the FAFSA (to use a silly example) other than "mother" and "father." I don't know if that is the same as not "fairing well." As a single parent, I have seen my children feel the awkwardness of not being in a mommy-daddy intact home, even though there is an awful lot of it nowadays. Is it such a bad thing to wish that at least a little of this be ameliorated for children born into a relationship that was not of their own choice? I am also thinking simply that two level-headed parents are better than one, and marriage gives them each equal legal say, divorced or not.
I also don't know that the "natural process of bonding...Psych 101" concerns bonding to parents of both sexes -- I thought they bonded to the people who were THERE for them! Do they bond differently to each parent? Yes, because each parent is a different person. Do they all bond one way to a mother, and one way to a father? No, because each parent is a different person. Does the child suffer biologically (as opposed to culturally) if she does not have a parent of each sex, but has two parents of the same sex? I'm not so sure about that -- but I doubt it.
Haven't read all the thread on this...but I can amagin.
My imput is to read "LIVING IN SIN" by John Sheby Spong.
He addresses such issues as Devorice, Marrige, Pre-marital Sex, Homosexuality, Male and Female roles from a historical and biblical point of view. It is a masterpeice of research work and is a quick read.
I think we'll all be suprised as to what was important to the Creator GOD. Compassion, Mercy, Grace and Forgivness might be at the top. Who you sleep with at night or laugh with in the mornig will probly be at the bottom. MHO
Not being mean Tom. It seems a fitting "section of the news" to be placed in.
"Death of the Institution of Marriage". :(-->
0000-2004 R.I.P.
So-o-o gays wanting to take part in the institution of marriage, which includes taking part in the commitment of marriage, ... which would mean *more* people practicing all the characteristics of marriage, ...
... means the death of the institution of marriage.
How do you kill an institution when it is so popular?
Those that damage it are those who either do not believe in it in the first place or treat it casually (serial monogamy).
The numbers involved bear witness to its continued vigour and strength in the human psyche.
Bill and Fred or Mary and Jane getting married in Massachusetts does not damage a strong heterosexual marriage one iota. When a marriage dies it is due to the individuals within it.
Remember also that marriage in this context is as a civil construct, not a theological one.
Not dead at all - but rather very much alive and thriving.
Weren't Adam and Eve married? That wasn't the year 0000 - it was 4004 BC according to Archbishop Usher! :D-->
Adam and Eve could not have been married as there were no clergy at that time, and noone to marry them. Therefore, their premarital sex was sinful, and all of their children were bastards.
At one wedding I attended, the minister (a TWI minister) stated, "When two people decide to marry, the only thing the minister can do is to bless the marriage." The intent, I suspect, was that the marriage commitment has already been made by the couple.
Straight people get married 1: because they can; and 2: because of societal pressure to do so.
When gay people decide they want to marry, or to committ to each other for life in any manner similar to "traditional" marriage, there are incredible hoops through which they must jump in order to land anywhere near the rights that are accorded, by birthright, to straight people. Further, the results typically are far from equal to what is accorded their straight counterparts. Hence, the opinion from the Masachussets Supreme Court which made yesterday the day it was.
According the same rights to gay people in the institution of marriage will not mean the end of the human species. Nor will it destroy society as we know it. If anything, IMHO, society, at large, will be enhanced.
In the history of the gay rights movement, May 17 will go down right along with the Stonewall riots in 1969.
Gay people are here to stay. And now, so is gay marriage. I suggest we all get used to the concept.
Not to insult anyone, but even before twi and my exposure to the Bible...When I was in college at a public university, we were taught in our ancient studies class about the Romans. One of the reasons given for the fall of their empire was rampant homosexuality. This is the same college that had active gay and lesbian associations as well as Gender studies. I attended that class and then went to our American studies class where we were reading Rubyfruit Jungle about a lesbian who discovers herself.
Focus on the Family has got a bunch of stuff about homosexuality--though some of their reasons to not legalize same sex marriage do seem far-fetched. They claim same legalized sex marriage will lead to legalized marriage between more than two people. They call it legalized group marriage. (lol)
Anyway, that's my two cents--and it's probably worth less!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
valerie52
References from the Word about Sodom and Gomorah, "tired and old",
Try telling that to G-d at the "bema".....
:(-->
Archleolgists have found the site of Sodom and Gomorah and there are millions of pieces of sulphur and tar that were tested.
They had in the past been taken to the temperature of over 4,0000 degrees!!
Where are you going to find an "oven" to cover an entire city to do that?
G-d did
It came from the heavens
That is really hot!!!
If you throw a match to a piece of it, it will explode, with a noxion gas that will kill you if you are too close!!
Tired?
-->
Old?
-->
HOT!!!!
:o-->
This has nothing to do with LCM!!
I left before he went on his apparent tireade agaisnt homosexualls.
This is not a "tireade against homosexualls".
I do NOT want them teaching my chilrden or grandchildren.
They will come home, they ALWAYS DO, we hear it all the time, with questions about the teacher and his "partner: etc.
It is telling what the word sais. It is a no no.
We are to be kind and loving to everyone, but we do not let evil take over our country, we are not supposed to anyway....
Would you all think it was OK to have Muslim terrorsit SUPPORTERS teach your children?????
The little kids in Muslim countries are taught from Kindergarten to hate Jews.
I had a air condition repairman come to my home and he did not do what the contract said. He was a supporter no doubt, He made reference to Muslim customs coming over and taking over etc. from things he was saying etc, he thought that since I was a blond woman that I was a second class citizen and he could lie to me HA HA HA
I called Sears on his ***.
OH that's a different subject sorry.
(Pat Robertson interviewed a FORMER Muslim terrorist that got saved beleived in Jesus (Yashua) and told of how they are trained since day one that is to GOOD to hate)......
The reasosn Yashau did not talk about homosexuality, perhaps because it was already covered quite extensivley previously in OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear laleo,
You said...
Likewise, can you point me to the research that indicates that the child is not faring well because of an "innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender?" We simply don't know. What we have already allowed, however, is to have a single parent give birth or adopt.I am more than aware of the emotional problems that children have when their parents divorce. The stress involved is second only to the death of a parent. In the exit counseling session I went through in 2001, it was re-iterated, but emphasized that if one of the partners was abusive, then divorce was preferred over children suffering with abuse and tension. If the divorce happens, then it is preferred to have two loving parents who can put aside their differences and put the children's needs first.
That is what I was talking about. Two reasonable people with equal legal say, discussing what would be in the best interest of the child. I think two people would be preferable over one. And I speak as a single parent.
And I daresay, there are many children of adoption and gay families (or who have grandparents for parents, or other untraditional arrangement) who do just fine, and do not feel a pressing need to find their birth parents.
Regards,
Shaaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Valerie said:
Well of course not, but what has that got to do with this? If you would take the word terrorist out of your question, my answer would be "No, I wouldn't care"...I wouldn't want terrorist homosexual supporters teaching my children either, but I didn't think that's what this thread was about... what brought terrorist into this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Shaz,
I honestly don't mean to be nitpicky, but you are the one who implied that children raised in same-sex unions don't fare well, not me. I responded to it as a conditional. You offered it as a given. You say it's because of "stigma" and the lack of two adults to jointly make decisions. As far as asking me to prove the natural process of bonding and separation that occurs during the journey from childhood into adulthood, between parents and children, all of that is covered in Psychology 101. You are the one who is presenting a radical change in those theories, and asking others to accept those changes based on your assertions, without offering a shred of research to back up your claims. You say "we simply don't know." I disagree. I think there is a lot we do know. The part that we "simply don't know" is the long-term emotional and developmental effects on children raised in same-sex unions. So why do you say that this arrangement is preferable, when at this point it is still experimental?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Let's face it, conservative Christian doctrine relating to homosexuality simply doesn't "line up" with life's experiences or reality.
I too was taught the hateful, frothing at the mouth, mean spirited, self righteous, homophobic doctrines of condemnation. About the demons that left one's mind void of judgement. I recall the tone in wierwille's voice as he called them the "lowest of the low".
Sorry, it just doesn't float. I know plenty of scum bag heterosexuals who have no business being around children, let alone raising them. I also know plenty of gays that are kind, responsible, caring, loving, honest people who I'm sure would do a wonderful job at raising kids.
Of course it works both ways. The point being is that there are good and bad heteros and there are good and bad homos. Sexual orientation should not really be a factor, anymore than the color of one's hair or what country your grandparents immigrated from.
Unless of course we should simply eliminate the part in the constitution that seperates "church and state". Personally, I don't feel that "denominational doctrines" should be the criteria for civil law. The operative ideas in formulating civil law should include pluralism and tolerance.
In reality, I am a heterosexual who is repulsed by the notion of two men "being involved". I find that homosexual behavior goes against my own preferences and sensibilities but nevertheless, as an American, I must insist on equal rights and equal protection for all citizens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Tom,
Like you, I have a problem with the "I wouldn't want a homo teaching my children" argument. If he was a professional, you would never know if he was homosexual or not, because sex would just never come up! I also would not want my child taught by a hetero who says, "Boy, lemme tell you about the piece I got last night...." He should be fired, for his conduct, not his orientation.
Dear laleo,
Sorry, I will try and make it clear one more time; otherwise, just chalk it up to my Lyme brain being unable to put it together for you. I am trying to say that a child may feel like an outsider for only having only one legal parent, for not having wedding pictures to look at, for having no space on the FAFSA (to use a silly example) other than "mother" and "father." I don't know if that is the same as not "fairing well." As a single parent, I have seen my children feel the awkwardness of not being in a mommy-daddy intact home, even though there is an awful lot of it nowadays. Is it such a bad thing to wish that at least a little of this be ameliorated for children born into a relationship that was not of their own choice? I am also thinking simply that two level-headed parents are better than one, and marriage gives them each equal legal say, divorced or not.
I also don't know that the "natural process of bonding...Psych 101" concerns bonding to parents of both sexes -- I thought they bonded to the people who were THERE for them! Do they bond differently to each parent? Yes, because each parent is a different person. Do they all bond one way to a mother, and one way to a father? No, because each parent is a different person. Does the child suffer biologically (as opposed to culturally) if she does not have a parent of each sex, but has two parents of the same sex? I'm not so sure about that -- but I doubt it.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Just for the record - it all became legal today and is proving very popular.
Even made the news over here!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Made the news there, eh?
-->
I hope it was posted as an obituary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
why so mean dmill?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Haven't read all the thread on this...but I can amagin.
My imput is to read "LIVING IN SIN" by John Sheby Spong.
He addresses such issues as Devorice, Marrige, Pre-marital Sex, Homosexuality, Male and Female roles from a historical and biblical point of view. It is a masterpeice of research work and is a quick read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Not being mean Tom. It seems a fitting "section of the news" to be placed in.
"Death of the Institution of Marriage".
:(-->
0000-2004 R.I.P.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
oh... OK then...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
I think we'll all be suprised as to what was important to the Creator GOD. Compassion, Mercy, Grace and Forgivness might be at the top. Who you sleep with at night or laugh with in the mornig will probly be at the bottom. MHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So-o-o gays wanting to take part in the institution of marriage, which includes taking part in the commitment of marriage, ... which would mean *more* people practicing all the characteristics of marriage, ...
... means the death of the institution of marriage.
Hhmmmm, sounds like double speak to me.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
How do you kill an institution when it is so popular?
Those that damage it are those who either do not believe in it in the first place or treat it casually (serial monogamy).
The numbers involved bear witness to its continued vigour and strength in the human psyche.
Bill and Fred or Mary and Jane getting married in Massachusetts does not damage a strong heterosexual marriage one iota. When a marriage dies it is due to the individuals within it.
Remember also that marriage in this context is as a civil construct, not a theological one.
Not dead at all - but rather very much alive and thriving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
So, now that you and your wife can no longer be married due to the death of "The Institution of Marriage", what are you doing Saturday night?
Just kidding.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yes we just might!
Now he worships at an altar of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled.
Oh, man is opposed to fair play,
He wants it all and he wants it his way. B Dylan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Weren't Adam and Eve married? That wasn't the year 0000 - it was 4004 BC according to Archbishop Usher!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Adam and Eve could not have been married as there were no clergy at that time, and noone to marry them. Therefore, their premarital sex was sinful, and all of their children were bastards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
If that was the case Mr-P-Mosh, then marriage was being attacked at a very early stage.
And Cain was guilty of the sin of Nodomy!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExWayDaryl
From my side of the fence...
At one wedding I attended, the minister (a TWI minister) stated, "When two people decide to marry, the only thing the minister can do is to bless the marriage." The intent, I suspect, was that the marriage commitment has already been made by the couple.
Straight people get married 1: because they can; and 2: because of societal pressure to do so.
When gay people decide they want to marry, or to committ to each other for life in any manner similar to "traditional" marriage, there are incredible hoops through which they must jump in order to land anywhere near the rights that are accorded, by birthright, to straight people. Further, the results typically are far from equal to what is accorded their straight counterparts. Hence, the opinion from the Masachussets Supreme Court which made yesterday the day it was.
According the same rights to gay people in the institution of marriage will not mean the end of the human species. Nor will it destroy society as we know it. If anything, IMHO, society, at large, will be enhanced.
In the history of the gay rights movement, May 17 will go down right along with the Stonewall riots in 1969.
Gay people are here to stay. And now, so is gay marriage. I suggest we all get used to the concept.
ExWayDaryl
Franklin Park, Illinois
...who has no intention of marrying my cat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Daryl, Will you marry me? I know you are gay but you sound like my kinda guy!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Darryl, if you should ever get married, I will be the first in line asking for a wedding invitation, and offering my assistance in any way possible.
You deserve no less happiness than Cindy! and I have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pfalbmo
Not to insult anyone, but even before twi and my exposure to the Bible...When I was in college at a public university, we were taught in our ancient studies class about the Romans. One of the reasons given for the fall of their empire was rampant homosexuality. This is the same college that had active gay and lesbian associations as well as Gender studies. I attended that class and then went to our American studies class where we were reading Rubyfruit Jungle about a lesbian who discovers herself.
Focus on the Family has got a bunch of stuff about homosexuality--though some of their reasons to not legalize same sex marriage do seem far-fetched. They claim same legalized sex marriage will lead to legalized marriage between more than two people. They call it legalized group marriage. (lol)
Anyway, that's my two cents--and it's probably worth less!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.