Trump Child Care Tax Credit Plan Includes Homosexual Households

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

A fact sheet posted to the website of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump outlines that his child care tax credit plan will extend to homosexuals raising children together.

Trump unveiled his child care proposal on Tuesday, which he touted as an “an innovative plan to bring federal tax policies in line with the needs of today’s families.”

“The Trump plan will rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents,” it reads in part. “Mr. Trump’s plan will provide regulatory reform to promote new family-based and community-based solutions, and also add incentives for employers to provide child care at the workplace.”

In the brief Q & A section following the plan outline, the fact sheet reads, “‘Will same-sex couples receive the benefits?”

“The benefits would be available in the same way that the IRS currently recognizes same-sex couples: if the marriage is recognized under state law, then it is recognized under federal law,” the reply explains.

Trump did not mention homosexuality when speaking of his plan during a conference call on Tuesday, nor did he cite the matter during his appearance later that day in Philadelphia. But some noticed the inclusion of the question on Trump’s fact sheet, including David Lane of the American Renewal Project.

“[W]e applaud Donald Trump for wishing to make families stronger, but not with the help of social engineering,” he told Circa.com. “Evangelicals are not going to support a policy that has anything less than a mommy and daddy in the home. Studies show that children best flourish when one mom and one dad are there to rear them.”

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, the Trump campaign generated applause from some and disappointment from others when it became known last month that the website of the Republican nominee included the sale of “LGBTQ for Trump” t-shirts and pins.

“Show your pride and your support for Trump with this exclusive equality tee,” the store page for the t-shirt, available as the “Trump pride men’s tee,” reads.

Trump had also declared at a fundraiser in June that he is the best candidate for the “gay community.”

“So you tell me, who’s better for the gay community, and who’s better for women than Donald Trump? Believe me!” he said.

During his acceptance speech in July, Trump told those gathered that he would work to protect homosexuals if elected.

“As president, I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” Trump declared, being met with applause.

“And, I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said,” he said in response.

In February, he also replied in the affirmative when asked by a lesbian reporter if the nation can expect “more forward motion” on homosexual issues if elected president.

Both Trump and Clinton have declared that they are the best choice for the “LBGT community.”

“We will defend all our rights—civil rights, human rights and voting rights—women’s rights and workers’ rights—LGBT rights and the rights of people with disabilities!” Clinton declared during her acceptance speech a week after Trump made his remarks.

The previous month, she marched in New York City’s “gay pride” parade, posting numerous Tweets that day about the issue, including a video of the Democratic candidate speaking at a homosexual and transgender community center.

“[P]art of what I want to do as president is to keep not only our campaign for full equality going, but also to turn our attention with the help of so many like you to speak out and work for giving others around the world the opportunity to be who they are, love who they choose, [and] have the kind of future they deserve,” she said in the clip.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • ComeOnPeople!

    And what have they all to say on Christian rights? Silence. Hmmmm It would appear that all others need their rights protected other then those of Faith. Freedom of religion isn’t even on their lips , why? Because those who hold to the teachings of the Hebrew text do not support the idea that man is his own god nor that man knows what is right or wrong apart from the words of GOD. They think if they silence Christians their conscience will stop haunting them . Sorry truth can never be silenced , therefore no man will be without excuse for transgressing GOD’s instructions. If HE says something is immoral and you do it anyway, you are living in rebellion and have chosen to live a life apart from a loving Creator. The fact is mans laws are never above his CREATORS laws, mans thoughts are never higher then the thoughts of the ONE who made him.

    • james blue

      What “Christian rights” are being lost by giving same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples?

      • RWH

        Actually, the gays are getting the same rights as all other protected classes. What is really happening is that a very vocal minority of Christians are losing their special privileges. They’re finding out that that they can no longer treat those that they consider sinners like dirt and get away with a free pass. The same thing happened during the civil rights movement. It violated cherished Christian beliefs that segregation was the will of God. There are still a significant group that hasn’t given up this belief. However, being a white supremacist isn’t a badge of honor anymore.

        • Amos Moses

          What complete and utter nonsense ……….. homosexuals make poor choices …. no one forces them to make those choices …… but christians are treating “those that they consider sinners like dirt and get away with a free pass” ….. homosexuals chose poorly but it is everyone elses fault for their choices …… utter lack of reasoning …………..

          • RWH

            Well, what I see in your answer is another bad choice. So-called bad choices are a judgment call. I’ve lived long enough to see many so-called “bad choices” turn into perfectly acceptable ones. The real fact is that you don’t like gay people, and you will use any Scripture or logic to bolster that dislike, no matter how lame the answer is. That, you have clearly shown us through your posts.

          • Amos Moses

            ” The real fact is that you don’t like gay people, and you will use any Scripture or logic to bolster that dislike, no matter how lame the answer is. ”

            as i have not used even ONE scripture to prove my points …. so you admit your position cannot stand up to LOGIC ……………. thnx ………….. you just lost …………

        • Christopher Newman

          This topic about homosexuals has nothing to do with white supremacists. What matters here is that there is the Word of God and whether it is believed and obeyed.

          • John L. Battey

            We, as a nation, are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. If you would have us governed by the Bible, then the Constitution and the Government has no choice but to see you in the same light as those who would have us ruled by the Sharia.

          • Amos Moses

            “We, as a nation, are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible”

            Yep ……… and we are being judged for that misbelief …………..

          • RWH

            Yep. So-called Christians like to spout God’s judgment and damnation as some sort of club. However, they can’t prove anything. Signs and wonders are always subject to interpretations, sometimes very conflicting ones. Years ago, when the Russian Orthodox Church finally reunited, an icon of the Mother of God started weeping. One group said that the Virgin was grieved that the free Russian Church joined with the “godless” official church. Another group said that the Virgin was shedding tears of joy that the church had come together again.

          • Amos Moses

            Yep …. explain to the judge the next time you commit a crime and are caught how that “club” works … no signs and wonders needed ….. natural consequences for stupidity ………….. and trying to justify stupidity …….

          • RWH

            Actually, courts don’t treat all crimes alike. Motivation has a great deal to do with how courts handle any matter. What is so absolutely amazing is that you keep on digging that hole of yours deeper and deeper, and you’re too full of yourself and your opinions to realize how stupid you look. Just follow the stream of any type of conversation to see how clueless you are.

          • Amos Moses

            Yep … sure … so what ……….. you admit your arguments do not stand up to logic and you are now reduced to ad hominem attacks ………… loser argumentation …………….

          • RWH

            Well, people invoked obeying the Word of God back in the 1950s-60s when the idea of segregation came up. Bob Jones Sr. proclaimed that segregation was a bedrock doctrine of Scripture. One could not be a Christian and not believe in segregation. People have found all sorts of scripture to justify their beliefs. Someday, people will believe that to be a Christian does not mean bashing those whom we don’t approve of. Business that refused service to the “colored people” got leaned on by the government just as people who refuse service to the gays are getting the same punishment. Being a follower of Christ does not give one license to treat others in a shabby manner. And there’s plenty of Scripture to back that up.

          • Christopher Newman

            You are right but remember too the true Christian view has always been to love the sinner but hate the sin.

          • RWH

            Yes, I have often heard people say that, but the sad part is many do not practice what they preach. All one has to do is to look at mannerisms and other forms of nonverbal communication. When caught off guard, their body language tells all. People often do not have to say anything to communicate that they loath others. All one has to do is to look at the way some people stare at others. Voice tone also says a lot. People may say that they love the sinner, but their voice tone and ever so slight body or facial movements tell one otherwise.

      • Amos Moses

        they will never have the “same benefits” as there are no benefits to being “a same sex couple” ………. it is against nature and it has its own self correcting consequences ….. you cannot change Gods creation just because you disagree with it …………….

        • james blue

          Okay,but your rejection of gay marriage does not answer the question asked.

          • Amos Moses

            that is the answer ……… you cannot change nature just because you disagree with it …… passing a law of men does not change nature …. it does not change the way God made things to work …… and same sex couples do not work ………

          • james blue

            The question asked was “what “Christian rights” are being lost by giving same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples?”

            Not “do you agree with homosexuality” or think it natural?

          • Amos Moses

            “Not “do you agree with homosexuality” or think it natural?”

            that is not the question i answered ….. you cannot change nature and creation because you disagree with it …………… it is not a matter of rights ….. it is a matter of the choices they have made against nature …. they now want to force everyone to agree with their lie and their choice ……

          • Proud Amelekite

            Actually, I change nature every day. I wear eyeglasses because my eyes are naturally near-sighted and take medications for my other natural health problems. Man is the master of nature. If your God has a problem with that I invite him to come and smite us – till then your appeals are all in vain.

          • Amos Moses

            he has smited us ….. with homosexual “marriage” ………….

            “Actually, I change nature every day.”

            So change your nature so that you can fly through the air unaided by a machine ………..

          • Proud Amelekite

            I see you aren’t very bright. Further conversation with you will be unfruitful.

          • Amos Moses

            so all you have is ad hominem and now you take your marbles and run away ….. BYE ….. dont let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya ………….

          • james blue

            Again you are answering a question not asked. The question isn’t about homosexuals, it’s about the rights of Christians.

          • Amos Moses

            the question was … “What “Christian rights” are being lost by giving same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples?” …. the answer is there are no benefits …… so why should they be given what they have rejected ………… if you want the “benefits” of marriage ….. then get married ……. but two of the same sex is not a marriage ….

          • james blue

            Are you being deliberately obtuse?

          • Amos Moses

            No …. your thoughts are confused ………….

          • james blue

            Not at all, I’ve accepted that you reject homosexual marriage as being legitimate, what I asked is how them receiving benefits you don’t agree with denying the rights of Christians? You obviously cannot name one right Christians are denied by them having spousal benefits, but please feel free to not answer the actual question asked again

          • Amos Moses

            why should a criminal, bent on the destruction of society, be given any benefit of society …… there is no reason whatsoever ………… we do this for no one else who is destructive of the ends of an ordered society …… they are in rebellion ….. we do not give benefits to those in rebellion ……………

          • james blue

            Still not answering the question asked.

          • Amos Moses

            still not accepting the truth ……….. that is all you have ………

        • [email protected]

          Not true, there are plenty of benefits that gay people get from a same sex relationship. And no, having a religious objection to it does not mean that it is “agasint nature” clearly a naturally occurring variation of human sexuality is not “agasint nature”

          • Amos Moses

            “And no, having a religious objection to it does not mean that it is “agasint nature””

            thus no religious objection was given ….. it is obvious …. it is against nature … natures drive is to procreate, to continue nature ……….. and homosexuals do not …………..

          • [email protected]

            Procreation is a species level requirement, not an individual level one. Nature is not going to drive every individual to want to procreate and indeed it is in the best interest of the species to have some members who do not procreate thus we should expect nature to account for this by providing some members of the species with a non-reproductive sex drive. what we can not do is take a species level requirement, the continuation of the species, and then claim that an individual is going agasint nature if they do not procreate. Again, nature poses no requirement that all members of the species attempt to procreate, only that most do.

          • Amos Moses

            “Procreation is a species level requirement, not an individual level one.”

            So then you have no claim on the species level requirement of marriage to carry that out ……

          • [email protected]

            You could say that only if the ability to procreate was a requirement of marriage however it is not. We let heterosexual couples marry all the time even when we know that they will not be able to procreate. We do this becasue we know that marriage has value and worth that goes beyond reproduction.

            So that is an easy objection to deal with, marriage is not limited to procreation and so you can not use the inability to procreate as a reason to deny marriage to gay couples. we also would not want marriage to be limited only to those who are able to procreate becasue that would exclude other couples from marriage even when it would be good for them and for society for them to be included.

          • Amos Moses

            No …… the requirement for marriage is not ability to procreate …… it is the necessity to procreate ………. and homosexuals have said “no” ………… without that necessity, there is no ” species level requirement” or “an individual level one” because then there is no species ……….

          • [email protected]

            Again the “necessity to procreate” can not be said to be a requirement of marriage becasue we let heterosexual couples marry even if they are unable reproduce. Unless you are going to turn away heterosexual couples who do not want to or are unable to reproduce you can not claim that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

            Secondly not only is it not currently a requirement for marriage but there is no reason why we should want to make it one. the value and purpose of marriage is not limited to only supporting procreation and indeed, marriage is a good thing for couples even if procreation is fully off the table. So nature does not demand that everyone reproduce nor does marriage demand that people be able to reproduce to get married. I would also note that none of this is to say that procreation is not a good thing….it is, but not everyone is going to try to reproduce and indeed some people have a non-reproductive sex drive.

          • Amos Moses

            “heterosexual couples marry even if they are unable reproduce”

            we have no proof that any heterosexual couple cannot procreate ….. we have BILLIONS of examples that they do ………… as a necessity ………. homosexuals OTOH …… how many have they procreated …… ZERO ………………. how many homosexual couples have had children WITHIN their “relationship” … with NO outside intervention ……. ZERO …….

          • [email protected]

            Sure we do. For just one example if a man is quadriplegic and thus unable to procreate but still wants to get married he can. What you are proposing is a standard that says “well we assume that all heterosexuals can reproduce becasue most do and so the standard would only ever be enforced agasint same sex couples and never heterosexual couples. But at that point the standard is on its face discriminatory becasue it is designed to only ever exclude same sex couples and never heterosexual couples. The targeted nature of the enforcement makes it 100% clear that the goal is NOT to limit marriage only to couples who are able to reproduce but rather to denying marriage to same sex couples. When you have a rule that supposedly applies to everyone but could only be enforced agasint same sex couples then the purpose and nature of that supposedly universal rule is clear, it exists to target same sex couples and exclude them while not impacting heterosexual couples who are not able to reproduce at all.

            and that is why that argument failed again and again in court, becasue the supposedly universal rule was clearly targeted and discriminatory.

          • Amos Moses

            Heterosexual relationships bring about procreation by default ….. by default homosexual “relationships” do not ……………””well we assume that all heterosexuals can reproduce” … sorry …. its NOT AN ASSUMPTION ….. it is OBVIOUS …………….

          • [email protected]

            No they do not. not all heterosexuals can reproduce nor doe all heterosexual couples want to have kids. Thus you can not treat them all like they can reproduce becasue they can not all reproduce. Thus heterosexual couples who can not reproduce and same sex couples fall into the same boat. they both can not naturally reproduce and yet they can both still have a family and they can both still get married. again it is clearly factually incorrect to claim that all heterosexual couples are able to reproduce.

          • Amos Moses

            does not matter if homosexuals “want” to have kids ……….. they are unable to procreate ……

          • [email protected]

            as are some heterosexual couples. yet we still let those heterosexual couples get married. and why? well becasue couples who are unable to reproduce can still adopt and raise kids or serve as foster parents and also becasue being able to have kids is not a requirement to get married. you can get married and never have or raise kids and still be married. reproduction is an important part of marriage but it is not a part of every marriage nor does it need to be.

          • Amos Moses

            But the default for heterosexuals is procreation and the default for homosexuals is NOT …….. and wishing it to be different is not going to change it ….. if you want a marriage ….. and children ….. then get REAL married ….. ‘not some foolish shadowy fake of what marriage is …….

          • [email protected]

            You can not make policy based on what the “default” for couples is. You can not say that, “well we are going to treat all heterosexual couples as if they can reproduce and just exclude all the same sex couples” that is clearly a targeted and discriminatory approach to a supposedly universal rule and it makes it clear that the goal of that enforcement is NOT to limit marriage only to those who are able to reproduce but rather to keep same sex couples from marriage.

            It also again ignores the fact that there is purpose and value to marriage even if reproduction is off the table and thus we do not want a rule that limit marriage only to those who are able to reproduce. so again, marriage is open to couples even when they are not able to reproduce and that means that you can not use the inability to reproduce as a reason to deny marriage to same sex couples.

          • Amos Moses

            “You can not make policy based on what the “default” for couples is.”

            Yes .. you can ……….. and it has been that way for THOUSANDS of years and to say we cant ….. DENIES REALITY ….. and only points out the bankrupt position you hold …………….. no one is “discriminating” ….. if you violate natural law … there are natural consequences and what you are arguing is “special pleadings” …………. and you anit special …… you are just in rebellion ……………

          • [email protected]

            Marriage laws have not explicitly banned same sex couples for thousands of years….that only happened after same sex couples started trying to get married. The bans were put in place using the excuse that marriage was only for procreation however that argument carries no water becasue the enforcement is only targeted at same sex couples while leaving a giant loop hole open for all heterosexual couples to still get married even if they can’t or wont reproduce. So clearly the goal of such bans are not to restrict marriage only to those who are able to reproduce but rather to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples only becasue of moral disapproval of homosexuality.

            So no, marriage is NOT only limited to those who can reproduce and thus any argument that tries to say that gay people can not marry becasue they can not reproduce is bound to fail unless you also exclude heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce.

          • Amos Moses

            “Marriage laws have not explicitly banned same sex couples for thousands of years…”

            AGAIN ……….. denial of reality ……….. and evidence of a reprobate mind ………… society does not continue without PROCREATION ……… homosexuality does not promote ANY societal goal …. other than to destroy it ……………

          • [email protected]

            not at all denial of reality. Yes society needs procreation to continue however that does not mean that we need everyone to procreate for that to happen. homosexuality never has and never will be a threat to the ability of the species to continue itself. having a minority that is gay does not even come close to preventing there being enough procreation to continue the species.

            as to societal goals there are many that can be meet by people who do not procreate. for one there is a need for people who can parent kids when their biological parents are unable to parent them. As I said before it is actually in the best interest of the species to have a sub-set of the population that does not have a reproductive sex drive.

          • Amos Moses

            “homosexuality never has and never will be a threat to the ability of the species to continue itself.”

            hence it is anti-society and is to be shunned …………… they do not work for a society …. they work AGAINST it ……………. it leads to lawlessness and it encourages others to lawlessness ……….. and this is also anti-society ……… it leads to the destruction of society …. they are in rebellion …… why should we encourage rebellion ………..

          • [email protected]

            so you admit that homosexuality has never been a threat to the ability of the species to continue itself but then say that is why it is to be shunned? how does that follow? Again it does not agasint society becasue society does not need everyone to have a reproductive sex drive in order to continue itself. Having a minority that has a non-reproductive sex drive is not at all a problem for the species or society. you are acting like having a non-reproductive sex drive is some kind of threat to the species and society when it is not.

          • Amos Moses

            It is a threat and i just told you why ……….. why should any homosexual recieve ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER for being in rebellion to society ………… explain that ….. we do not do it for anyone else in rebellion to society …… why is you think they are entitled to the benefits of a society that they want to destroy …………… that they do not want to build ….. what possible reason could there be …………

          • [email protected]

            No you did not explain why it is a threat. You made the claim but did not back it up at all. what do you mean by “rebellion to society” gay people do not want to destroy society, I do not want to destroy society at all so that claim is untrue. So but yes, please explain exactly how gay people are a threat to society and what exactly you mean by being in “rebellion” agasint society.

          • Amos Moses

            Gonna cut and paste here what you refuse to read on your own ……………. “it is anti-society and is to be shunned …………… they do not work for a society …. they work AGAINST it ……………. it leads to lawlessness and it encourages others to lawlessness ……….. and this is also anti-society ……… it leads to the destruction of society …. they are in rebellion …… why should we encourage rebellion ………..”

          • [email protected]

            I read and responded to that above. you are not making any case there just tossing around a bunch of labels. How is it anti-society? the simple act of not reproducing does not harm society or work agasint it. How exactly does it lead to lawlessness and what even do you mean by that? this is also not explained. and what do you mean by being in rebellion agasint society? you also did not explain what was meant by that. so again none of that makes a case for any of the negative labels you assigned and simply saying them does not make them true. If they are true then you should be able to make the case for them.

          • Amos Moses

            the labels apply to those we are talking about …. homosexuals are in rebellion ……….. they are lawless ………..

          • [email protected]

            in rebellion agasint who or what? and what laws are they breaking? again you are tossing around labels without backing them up with any justification.

          • Amos Moses

            against an ordered society …………..

          • [email protected]

            Not at all. Again a minority of people with a non-reproductive sex drive is not at all a problem for or a threat to an ordered society. In fact it is in the best interest of society to have some people who have a non-reproductive sex drive. so they are not in rebellion becasue they can fit right into how things should go. That they fall outside of what you think they should do does not mean that society should view them as being in rebellion.

            You are trying to take a good thing, procreation, and turn it into something that everyone must try to do but that is simply not the case and such an argument is fraught with problems.

          • Amos Moses

            “Not at all. ”

            only and all …….. and their actions encourage others to lawlessness ………..

          • [email protected]

            The first bit of that is in no way a refutation of the point I just made so it stands. And again how does it encourage others to lawlessness when they are not even breaking the law to begin with? Your lawlessness point has nothing to stand on right now and you have not even tried to support it.

          • Amos Moses

            “The first bit of that is in no way a refutation of the point I just made”

            not a refutation … a correction of your error ……… not error … lie ……..

            “how does it encourage others to lawlessness when they are not even breaking the law to begin with?”

            you want to believe it is just about mans law …. it violates the laws of nature as i have said …. and it encourages others to do likewise ………. mans law is neither the only law or the paramount law …………

            Evidence …………. “U.S. Government to Cover Sex Change Operations for Active Duty Soldiers” … just more lawlessness and it is encouraged by homosexual “marriage” lies and lawlessness ………….

          • [email protected]

            Your calling it a lie does not make it so. I have shown multiple times now that homosexuality in no way poses a threat to society or the species as we can still clearly continue the society and the species even with some people having a non-reproductive sex drive.

            and again as I have shown there is no violation of “the laws of nature” becasue homosexuality does not go agasint nature becasue nature in no way dictates that everyone must have a reproductive sex drive.

          • Amos Moses

            Your calling it the truth is even less so ………….

          • [email protected]

            Only in my case I have laid out the argument and the explanation for the position. It is not just me claiming that something is true but rather showing it and making the case for the position, a case that has not been refuted. you look at the facts and the relationship between those facts and it supports the position I have taken, not yours.

          • Amos Moses

            “Only in my case I have laid out the argument and the explanation for the position.”

            only in my case i have laid out the truth ………… and all you have laid out are the lies you tell yourself ……… and that is the biggest evidence of lawlessness …………

          • [email protected]

            You have not laid out truth. you have made claims that I have already responded to and shown the problem with those claims. If you can defend those claims then do but you have not done so at this point and that is clear when looking at this conversation.

          • Amos Moses

            “you have made claims that I have already responded to and shown the problem with those claims.”

            No ….. you have responded with half-truths and lies that you believe …… but no matter how well you believe them …… they are still lies …………. the truth is not a claim …… it is the standard …… it is up to you to prove it not so …. and you have not ………..

          • [email protected]

            Please explain which things I have said that are a half truth or a lie? and I mean list the statement and why you think it is a lie and I will be happy to explain and show how it is not at all a lie. as it is you are tossing the accusation around but not showing what exactly you think is a lie and certainly without backing up the claim that it is a “lie”

          • Amos Moses

            1. “Again a minority of people with a non-reproductive sex drive is not at all a problem for or a threat to an ordered society.” – half truth

            2. “so they are not in rebellion becasue they can fit right into how things should go.” – half truth

            3. “You are trying to take a good thing, procreation, and turn it into something that everyone must try to do but that is simply not the case and such an argument is fraught with problems.” – LIE

            4. “Your lawlessness point has nothing to stand on right now and you have not even tried to support it.” – LIE

            5. ” how does it encourage others to lawlessness when they are not even breaking the law to begin with” – complete and utter LIE

          • [email protected]

            #5 is not at all a lie. again it is not in violation of civil or criminal law to have sex with someone of the same sex nor is there any “natural law” which dictates that people must only engage in a reproductive type of sex. so to claim lawlessness or encouraging lawlessness as a harm is 100% wrong as I have shown multiple times now. you could argue that you think it should be illegal but that does not change if it actually is or not.

            #4 is likewise not a lie, the only thing you have to base the claim on is the assertion that it is a violation of “natural law” but again there is nothing intrinsic to nature that dictates that we can only engage in the reproductive type of sexual activity. If you want to claim that we must that is a moral claim that you are making and that I do not follow it does not make me lawless.

            #3 is again not a lie, there is no universal mandate that we must all engage in procreation or that sex must always have procreation as its goal. to claim that sex must always have reproduction as a goal is a sexual ethic claim that you are making but that does not make it valid. you must show a good reason for why we should accept such a standard if you want it to be accepted, it is not just automatically valid.

            That you disagree with a statement does not make it a lie, you seem to misunderstand what a lie is.

          • Amos Moses

            5. ” nor is there any “natural law” which dictates that people must only engage in a reproductive type of sex.” – LIE – what homosexuals do is not sex …… “Natural law” is what nature dictates to PROPAGATE the species …… what homosexuals do does not do that and so …. IT IS NOT SEX …… so that statement is a lie ……….

            4. ” there is nothing intrinsic to nature that dictates that we can only engage in the reproductive type of sexual activity.” LIE – the exact same LIE told another way ………….LIE …. if it does not have the potential of propagation of the species ….. IT IS NOT SEX ………..

            3. “to claim that sex must always have reproduction as a goal is a sexual ethic claim” – LIE …. if it does not …. then IT IS NOT SEX …….

          • [email protected]

            So now you are going to redefine the word sex? Sex is not limited to only putting a penis in a Vagina.

            Then again if it is not sex then on what basis do you object to it? You can not both say it is not sex and also object to it as improper sexual activity.

            On a related note would you also say that celibacy is wrong? Because celibacy does nothing to propagate the species. If you do not think celibacy is wrong then clearly it is okay for someone to not try to propagate the species so then why would you use that as a reason to object to homosexuality?

          • Amos Moses

            “Sex is not limited to only putting a penis in a Vagina.”

            Actually …. YES …. it is …….. because it leads to propagation of the species …… i cant understand why homosexuals want to call a garbage dump a restaurant ……….

            “You can not both say it is not sex and also object to it as improper sexual activity.”

            i never did …. i said it was against nature and natural law and it is lawlessness and it is not sex ….. it sort of looks like sex ….. but a ford sort of looks like a chevy ….. but it aint …….

            “On a related note would you also say that celibacy is wrong?”

            Red herring ….. but no ……… celibacy is not sex ……. it is refraining from sex ….. and again …. not what an active homosexual does ……..

          • [email protected]

            “celibacy is not sex ……. it is refraining from sex ….. and again …. not what an active homosexual does” Well make up your mind becasue you just said that homosexual activity is not sex so by that logic homosexual activity would be just as much abstaining from sex as celibacy.

            So what makes one form of abstaining from putting a penis in a vagina (celibacy) okay but another form of abstaining from putting a penis in a Vagina (homosexuality) wrong? you claim that homosexuality is agasint nature and natural law becasue it does not contribute to the propagation of the species but then you refuse to apply the same judgment to celibacy. So now you have another glaring double standard as the result of your efforts to condemn homosexuality.

          • Amos Moses

            do you have a problem with the English language ….. active homosexuals are not celibate ….. “just as much abstaining from sex as celibacy.” …. no …. very clever …. but no … and just more of the lies you want to spread ………

            ” So now you have another glaring double standard as the result of your efforts to condemn homosexuality.”

            nothing “glaring” there ……… no “double standard” ……… it is the same standard ….. homosexuals are not abstaining from anything ….. they are lying about it being sex …. they are bending the language to their lies to make the lie more palatable that it is ……. BUT IT IS STILL A LIE …………… a person who is celibate is NOT doing these things …. the homosexual reprobate DOES ………………….. and a recent statement by a politician demonstrates just how corrupting that LIE is ………….

            “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

            so there is not “i just want to have the same benefits” (homosexuals do NOTHING TO EARN THAT) but they also want to keep others from expressing their freedom if it differs from their idea of what homosexuals want ……….. complete and utter corruption and LIES …….. LAWLESSNESS and LACK OF RESPECT ….. exactly what they accuse others of doing to them …..

          • [email protected]

            celibacy: “the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.”

            If homosexual activity is not sexual activity then by definition homosexual people are celibate as they are abstaining from sex. You can not have it both ways. If you wish to recognize that gay people acting on homosexuality are not celibate then you must also admit that they are engaged in sexual relations.

            and again: you claim that homosexuality is agasint nature and natural law becasue it does not contribute to the propagation of the species but then you refuse to apply the same judgment to celibacy. If you are going to cite a lack of contribution to reproduction as a problem and a violation of natural law then you must apply that same judgement to celibacy. the only way to not group homosexuality and celibacy together is to admit that homosexuality is sexual activity in which case we are right back to comparing homosexuality to heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce.

          • Amos Moses

            “the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations” “homosexual activity is not sexual activity”

            see …. right there …….. you cannot even tell the truth about what you just wrote without changing the definition and deceptively CHANGING THE WORDS …………. LIE ………… homosexuals are not abstaining from anything …… they are not celibate ……… it is not both ways …….. ANOTHER LIE …………. what homosexuals do …. looks like sex but it is not ….. what a person who is celibate does ….. does not even RESEMBLE what a homosexual does ….. and your LAWLESSNESS is laid bare in even trying to attempt to convince anyone that it is …. are you like Hillary …. if people would stop asking questions you could stop LYING ……….

          • [email protected]

            I am not changing the definition of the words at all. If homosexual activity is not sex then same sex relations are not sexual relations which would mean they are abstaining from sexual relations which would, by definition, make them celibate. And this exposes just how absurd it is to try to say that homosexual activity is not sex. you made that mess all for yourself and now you are stuck, on the one hand you want to deny that homosexual activity is sex but on the other hand if you do that then by definition actively gay people are celibate.

            here is the truth. sex is not limited to only putting a penis in a vagina. there is reproductive type sexual activity and there is non reproductive type sexual activity. So yes, actively gay people are not celibate becasue they are engaged in sex. so again we are right back to the comparison with heterosexual couples who have sex even when there is no chance of them reproducing. and again, here I will say that it is not a problem if a minority of the population has a non-reproductive sex drive becasue the species can still fill the need to reproduce.

          • Amos Moses

            “I am not changing the definition of the words at all.”

            AGAIN …. READ THIS …. YOU CHANGED THE WORDS ……… YOU ARE A LIAR ………

          • [email protected]

            since you ignored everything that was said here it is again…calling it a lie does not make it so, rather it just shows that you are unable to respond to the argument that it made so you resort to trying to dismiss it.: If homosexual activity is not sex then same sex relations are not sexual relations which would mean they are abstaining from sexual relations which would, by definition, make them celibate. And this exposes just how absurd it is to try to say that homosexual activity is not sex. you made that mess all for yourself and now you are stuck, on the one hand you want to deny that homosexual activity is sex but on the other hand if you do that then by definition actively gay people are celibate.

            here is the truth. sex is not limited to only putting a penis in a vagina. there is reproductive type sexual activity and there is non reproductive type sexual activity. So yes, actively gay people are not celibate becasue they are engaged in sex. so again we are right back to the comparison with heterosexual couples who have sex even when there is no chance of them reproducing. and again, here I will say that it is not a problem if a minority of the population has a non-reproductive sex drive becasue the species can still fill the need to reproduce.

          • Amos Moses

            ” And this exposes just how absurd it is to try to say that ….”

            that you are capable of telling the truth …………………….

          • Amos Moses

            “actively gay people are not celibate becasue they are engaged in sex”

            AGAIN …. HALF TRUTH ……… SO ….. A LIE …………..

          • Amos Moses

            Are you even capable of saying one thing without it being a half truth or LIE ………….

          • ShemSilber

            It should suffice to say that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 tell us that homosexuality is abomination and its participants are worthy of death. In 1Corinthians 6:9-11, the Apostle Paul cautions us that refusal to turn from certain infractions of the Torah will keep one out of the Kingdom. including effeminacy and homosexuality. The proviso is, “…and such WERE some of you, but you are WASHED…” that is, washed by the blood of the Lamb who descended from the heavens to do the work of redemption. He came in human form by way of the virgin. He is Yahuwah who was planted in her womb, and she was given the honor as surrogate by whom He entered our world. He paid a high price to save us from all of our sins, and we need to return such love that He gives to us by learning to obey His commandments.

            In short, the Kingdom will still come in spite of homosexuality, but refusal to repent of that or any other transgression is choosing for oneself the second death, from which there is no resurrection, when we could have had everlasting life in the Master Yahushua. That is our choice, and the Master will never force us to choose life, but gives us ample time to do so. In Yahushua’s Name, omein.

          • [email protected]

            To address Leviticus: Levitical law does not apply to Christians today. it was established for a very particular time and place in Jewish history and for the Jewish people but it was not meant to be applied to Christians and picking and choosing what to use and what not to use from the levitical law is not sound theology or practice either. Thus if a case is to be made that homosexuality is a sin it must be done without using leviticus

            as to the list of sins we As to the list of sins that we find in 1 Corinthians 6 also also in 1 Timothy 1 we find two words used, words, that would indicate the scripture was talking about male prostitutes and those who use male prostitutes. Another broader potability was that the verse was referencing male prostitutes and those who engage in a variety of offenses, for example not only prostitutes but also rape or sex with minor boys. This interpretation of the verse would make sense as it would be a condemnation of practices that were seen as culturally acceptable at the time but would clearly be a violation of the christian sexual ethic.

            Unfortunately in many translations these verses were translated in ways that are far more broad then was intended in the original language but if we use this more limited language neither of these passages would serve as a broad condemnation of homosexuality. Getting the scope of the passages right is critically important becasue yes, if you go with translations that use broad language like “homosexuality” it clearly looks like a blanket ban on same sex sexual activity when in fact it is possible to be faithful to the original language and come to the conclusion that the verses were actually condemning certain forms of same-sex sexual activity.

          • ShemSilber

            That is exactly what I was talking about, the devil’s lies permeating religion. The devil’s lies divided your King James (or whichever) Bible into two testaments, instead of the ONE Book that it is. Malachi 3:6 says, “I am Yahuwah! I do not change!”

            The Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) is the one who gave the Torah to Moses, as the Word tells us in 1Corinthians 10:4 and Hebrews 11:24-26. He always HAS been the go-between, the representative of our Father in the heavens, for He is the one who did the creating (John 1:1-18; 8:56-58; Colossians 1:16). Since He gave the Torah to Moses, it still stands today, for Hebrews 13:8 says that He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore what Christianity calls the “Old Testament” is still as valid today as it ever was.

            For instance, there is the covenant with Noah, signified by the rainbow, that Yahuwah would not destroy the earth again by a worldwide flood. Isn’t that covenant still valid today? Has He brought another such flood over the whole earth?

            Psalm 117:2 says that the truth of Yahuwah endures forever. Psalm 119:89 says His word is settled forever in the heavens. When does “forever” end? Has the end of “forever” even come close to us yet? Therefore, if we want to be honest and avoid the devil’s lies, we have to admit that our Creator is the same today, and His instructions to us are the same today, as they have been from the foundation of the earth.

            In other words, the Master Yahushua always has been the Redeemer of mankind, from the time that He formed Adam from the dust of the earth until today. For instance, when Abraham believed the promise of Yahuwah, it was not on his own righteousness that he was saved, but it was “counted to him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23).

            The sum of the matter is that it is the devil’s lie that the Torah does not apply to Christians, for the blessing resulting from obedience to the Torah COULD be to all mankind of every nation and of every time from the beginning of the world until now, in the Name of the Master Yahushua who gave us His Torah in the first place at His and our Father’s direction, omein!

          • [email protected]

            I never said that the Old Testament does not apply to Christians today, rather I said that the Levitical law does not apply to Christians today. There is a huge difference between the two statements. So i would agree with you that the Old Testament does still apply and is important. However the Levitical law does not apply to Christians today.

          • RWH

            In a case dealing with quadriplegics a few years ago, the courts threw out the entire procreation argument. Actually, both gays and lesbians have had children. They just do so with artificial insemination. That is perfectly legal.

          • [email protected]

            all very true and good points to make as well. thanks.

          • Christopher Newman

            Homosexuality is against nature because a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina. So common sense should tell you that it is.

          • [email protected]

            That a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina does not tell me that penis/vagina sex is the only kind of sex people should try to have. It does tell me that heterosexuality is needed for natural reproduction but I can have sex without trying to have reproduction. Thus that fact does not at all tell me that homosexuality is agasint nature. Put another way yes we as a species need to reproduce but that does not mean that every individual must have a reproductive sex drive. the species could and does also have a minority with a non-reproductive sex drive while still having more then enough reproductive sex to continue the species.

      • Christopher Newman

        Christians are meant to be God’s ambassadors in this world. Homosexuals like to go on about their rights a lot but what about God’s rights. God is the holy creator of everything including people. Holiness means pure and set aside for a purpose. If He said practicing homosexuality is a sin, which He did, don’t you think He is grieved by it. Don’t you think He has the right to say don’t do it or I will judge you just because He is the Creator and Lord?

        • james blue

          Are you without sin?

          • Christopher Newman

            No. As christians we carry the fallen nature ( or propensity to sin) around with us, but sin is an act of willful disobedience to God. They are two different things. One is part of our state of being the other is an act or choice. What we can do then is turn from what is wrong or evil and lean on or rely on Jesus to help us keep going His Way.

          • james blue

            Okay let me be specific, Have you ever broken one of the ten commandments or committed any sort of sin yourself or do you lead a completely sinless righteous life?

            Think hard on that answer, you may not have robbed a bank, but have to watched copyrighted material online or downloaded music etc.

          • Amos Moses

            being sinless is not an option ………… embracing sin is ….. homosexuals embrace their sin to the point of denying it as sin …….. the christian recognizes sin as sin …… now if i was a homosexual and told other homosexuals to not be one ….. that is one thing …… but if we do not have that sin or it has been removed from us …… we have met the requirement to speak out about it ……….. homosexuals think this is Burger King and they can have it their way …. and force others to accept their way ….. the thief does not get to steal and then tell the rest of the world he is a good guy ….. and then continue to steal …………….

          • RWH

            Well, that is what a democracy is all about. Most people can have things their own way. The only thing holding most back is the lack of economic power. And the word SIN is a judgment call. What some groups call a sin is not really so. It’s all about the distinction between appearance and reality. Some people look at appearance and make all sorts of conjectures. That’s why God looks at the heart, not the outside appearance. People are too quick to label. What Amos fails to realize is that he’s making very fast judgment calls on the flimsiest of “appearance.” That is one of the chief reasons why the so-called traditionalists are losing the culture wars. People are tired of the trite labels and the stereotyping. They get tired of seeing loved ones and co-workers slandered by so-called do-gooders who have big mouths yet know nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            “Most people can have things their own way. The only thing holding most back is the lack of economic power.”

            so you argue against your own argument ……… your thoughts are confused …. either they can have it their way or they cannot …..

          • Amos Moses

            BTW, this is not a “democracy” …… it is a constitutional republic ……………………

          • Christopher Newman

            In man’s eyes in a democracy most people can have their own way but such ways are not necessarily what God wants. What counts is whether their lives line up with God’s Way. You are right that man looks on the outside but God looks at the heart. You are wrong to say culture is changing because people don’t like labels and stereotyping. The reason is far deeper than man’s judging. It is caused by peoples’ choice to reject God and His Word.

          • james blue

            And many many heterosexuals, including Christians embrace their own sins, they just convince themselves it’s “different”

          • Amos Moses

            then they are not christians are they …………… so what …………..

          • james blue

            By that standard this is not a Christian nation

          • Amos Moses

            i made no claim it was …………. it is a nation of christians ……… but that is not the samething …………

          • james blue

            Okay, by that standard this is not a nation of Christians.

          • Christopher Newman

            You are so right about that and how sad it is. It must grieve God greatly

          • Christopher Newman

            You are right in that there are many people who call themselves Christians but aren’t. For example the Nazis had “Got mit uns” (or “God with us” in English) on their storm trooper belts but that didn’t make them Christians. Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice”. In other words His sheep will hear their conscience when it is in line with God’s and Jesus’s commandments. The Word says Jesus knows His church and that is the church He knows”. It does not say ” Jesus knows the church that other people say He knows.” And Jesus said,” If you love me keep my commandments. It is these people who are truly His church and He is a holy God.

          • Christopher Newman

            There is a difference between living a life of sin and sinning just once on one occasion because of falling for temptation. Not that some sins are less terrible in their consequences than others. They are all equally bad. The soul that sins shall die. That is why Jesus came to redeem us with His blood from sin and a sinful lifestyle. But as far as changing culture goes bear in mind that righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach for any people. Righteousness means in right standing with God. The only way to get this is by having faith in God and His Way, That is by believing that Jesus has saved us and therefore together with this, listening to what God says in His Word and obeying Him according to His Word and our conscience when it is in line with His Word. That is one reason Christians are called people of the Word.

          • james blue

            That sounds like bargaining.

    • SFBruce

      Christians, like everyone else, have first amendment protections. Of course, that freedom applies to everyone, including Christians who have very different views from you, Jews, Muslims, as well as those with no belief in God at all.

      • Amos Moses

        “Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

        So persecution is coming and any protections are going to go ……….. if you believe that garbage you just spouted …… then you really are not paying attention …. two diametrically opposed ideas cannot coexist …………….

        • Proud Amelekite

          “two diametrically opposed ideas cannot coexist”

          In civilized, secular societies they can. In fundamentalist societies, you are right, they can’t. The strongest ideology always wins out and destroys, often violently, the losing ideology. Considering how the tide as turned against you, you are lucky we don’t live in the former.

          • Christopher Newman

            You have no idea about what is coming to this planet. The heart of MAN is evil and desperately wicked. (That is why Jesus came to give people a chance to be free) and if the spirit of lawlessness takes over as it is beginning to do it will make war on God’s people and subdue them for awhile and this will be a test for them. But then God will turn His wrath on those who rebel against His way of salvation and escape. This is what has been prophesied in God’s Word and He WILL bring it to pass.

          • Proud Amelekite

            Cool. I choose hell and judgement over bowing before your God.

          • Amos Moses

            “In civilized, secular societies they can.”

            sure ….. two bombings in NYC, 8 stabbings in Minnesota, and 3 bombs found in NJ ……. and that was yesterday ………….. and this is not a “fundamentalist societies” … according to you ….. no coherent explanation in any consistant manner ……….. FYI, those people involved yesterday DESPISE your idea of a “civilized, secular societies” …..

          • Amos Moses

            BTW, you are just as much a “fundamentalist” ……… you just choose to be a secular one ………..

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Nope sorry look at the cases in courts right now and within the last few years. Christians are quickly loosing their right to speak or to practice what they believe… unless they keep it behind four walls.

        • SFBruce

          Show me a single case where a Christian has been successfully prosecuted or lost a civil case for speaking out against same sex intimacy. Show me a single case where a Christian, or a person of any faith tradition has been denied the right to practice what they believe.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I will not do your homework for you … go look up what is happening in the courts. I don’t have time to pull up all the cases and copy paste just to prove to you a point. Look them up… they are there. The biggest proof is with Christian businesses world wide who are loosing court cases based upon their faith but their are others that are being thrown in jail for preaching on street corners or simply handing out pamphlets like in the case of Deerfield. Just type in Christians court cases and if you don’t find any… I’ll eat my hat.

          • SFBruce

            My homework? When you claim something is true, it’s your responsibility to offer proof, not mine. I’m unaware of any case where a Christian, or a person of any faith, has lost a court case where they were merely speaking out, or practicing their faith. A few bakers and florists have gotten themselves in legal jeopardy for defying laws which forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they’ve spoken out clearly and often about the unfairness they feel they’ve experienced as a result. Being a person of faith doesn’t exempt you from following laws you don’t like, nor is it license to deny fundamental freedoms to others.

          • Tangent002

            It’s laughable how often one sees this: Someone makes an absurd claim and when asked for supporting evidence demands that you do their research for them.

            What it inevitably means is that either the claim is too weak, or the supporting evidence is housed by some dicey blog.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

            Believe it or not men and women came here to PRACTICE religion not to have laws forbid them to do so. Study your history. America was founded, it’s governments and institutions upon morality based from the bible. I can copy paste hundreds of quotes from the founders and historical data which proves America had a Christian moral base up until she started this separation of church and state nonsense which was a term used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644 of “A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

            This was not law but a letter written to a baptist church to encourage them that this land unlike England would not enforce a STATE RUN religion but all men would have the right to practice their own beliefs.

            Schools and court houses used prayer and the morals of the bible to ensure that our country would not fall to immorality or a corruption in government . Yet corruption has slipped in and is taking over America. She has removed the morality of Scripture & prayers in our schools & replaced it with the theory of evolution and the teaching of immorality . The Government has removed much of the religious symbols in their courts houses and prayers , and in their place stands pagan statues and perverse speech . Soon you will have the very thing Thomas Jefferson was actually speaking against in his letter to the baptist church … a state run religion.

    • Proud Amelekite

      It is my right as an American to live in rebellion of your God and my right as a human to choose perdition over bowing before him. If he doesn’t like my being gay then I hate your God and reject his offer of salvation, fully and completely, now and forever. That is the choice I have made. Don’t try and force your grace on me and let me go into the darkness.

      • Christopher Newman

        I can never force God’s way of salvation on you because God has intended for all of us to have freedom of choice. Even so He expects you to live His way and if you don’t then there WILL come a judgement. You may say now you don’t care but later a time will come when you will care unless you repent.

        • Proud Amelekite

          He is free to judge me. I don’t bow to tyrants.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        While there is breath there is hope but should you die there will be no more opportunity to believe in a loving merciful GOD. Deception would have you believe this is all there is. As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be when HE returns… The people were wicked and their hearts were set on evil continually. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Although the people were totally depraved, they were not the least bit concerned about it. They were carrying on the events of their lives without a single thought of the judgment of God. Years had been spent warning the people what YAHWEH was about to do. No one listened.

        As it was then so it is now… People are lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. So you choose unbelief but I choose belief because I know that a world filled with perversion and wickedness cannot last and hope for an eternity were wickedness is destroyed. Live your short years in chaos… I plan to live forever in peace.

        • Proud Amelekite

          I have worked with a lesbian girl whose Christian mother had two married in uncles try to fix her by gangraping her because her immortal soul was on the line. Worked with kids thrown out of their homes and beaten to near death for being gay. You are fruit from a poison tree. Keep your eternal peace. Even if you were right I would choose hell over spending even a minute in the presence of your God because I hate your God and his son and always will and nothing you forked-tongued Christians or your Scriptures say to the contrary will ever sway my heart.

          I think about the judgement often and openly welcome it if it is coming. Even if your God or his son wanted to “save” me I would never let them.

  • Jenny Ondioline

    I would have thought it would be news if he DIDN’T include them, because he’d have been discriminating.

  • SFBruce

    Not all same sex couples would benefit from Trump’s proposal. His plan includes a guarantee of maternity leave, but nothing for the father. As a result, married gay men would be excluded from that benefit. Typically for Trump, he’s been on both sides of LGBT equality. Yes, he wants to protect us from foreign violence against LGBT people, but he says nothing specific about the domestic unfairness we still face. His pledge to nominate SCOTUS justices in the mold of Scalia in the hope of overturning Obergefell isn’t what most LGBT people will consider forward movement.

  • Nidalap

    Meh. Politicians…

  • Amos Moses

    “Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

  • robertzaccour

    Personally I’m against homosexuality but as far as what someone else does, as long as they’re not infringing on the rights of others, they should be allowed to live how they want.

    • Jason P

      But not make important decisions, because no sound minded person would engage in such activity.

      • robertzaccour

        I make important decisions every day. The point is I don’t try to force others to live accordingly. I’m what you might consider a Libertarian.

  • John L. Battey

    There’s this thing in the Constitution about equal protection, meaning everybody has the same rights as everybody else. The Presidential Oath of Office requires the President to protect the Constitution, not the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Bhagavad Gita or any other religious text.

    If you want a President who will cast aside the Constitution and establish a government that favors one religion over others, then Obama is your man, not Trump.

  • [email protected]

    Well of course it should. Gay couples raising kids deserve the same forms of support as heterosexual couples raising kids. If we are going to make policy that is going to support kids and families then it needs to have in mind the kids raised by same sex couples just as much as it does kids raised by heterosexual couples.

    • ShemSilber

      The Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) created us (John 1:1-18; 8:56-58; Hebrews 1:1-2) to function as heterosexual couples, to become procreators with Him, and providing both mother and father to rear up righteous children. Are we smarter than He is, that we can change the pattern that He as Creator assigned for us? He is the potter and we are, literally, the clay. When does the clay tell the potter what to make?

      When will we learn that the Bible is ALL ONE BOOK, not divisible into “Old” and “New” Testaments, as the anti-Semitic church “fathers” decreed? Their anti-Semitism renders them illegitimate, to put it mildly.

      Soon the Master Yahushua will return and re-educate all of us who put trust in Him, showing us how both rabbinic Judaism and Christianity altered the Scriptures to sound more like their version of belief, and also to show us manuscripts that are long lost, that show us even more truth that we have not known.

      Then every evil and wrong belief will be swept clean off the face of the earth and out of the universe, and we will have everlasting peace and productivity, omein!

  • Harry Oh!

    Glad he clarified with ‘…hateful foreign ideology’. The fact is that gays have always been left alone to do what they wanted in Europe and North America. The concocted notion that they were somehow ‘persecuted’ is complete bull. But let em have their tax credits if that makes the feel more normal. Trump had to offer this as he has no chance of getting elected unless he caters to the LGBT lobby.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Left alone to do what they wanted? As long as those things didn’t (until recently) include getting married, or serving in the military, I guess. I’ve never done either of those things myself, but I do understand some people consider them important.

      • Harry Oh!

        Ever heard of DADT? As for marriage…pleeeeeease! They were free to live with whoever they wanted and a simple Will would ensure their ‘loved one’ would be well provided for. There was no conflict here, until the LGBT invented one.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Yes, I have heard of DADT, have you? It never applied to heterosexual behavior.

          And, are you really going to try to tell me marriage doesn’t matter, as long as you can live with who you want to, and put whoever you want to in your will? Like you said, “pleeeeeease!”

        • Ambulance Chaser

          That’s all you think marriage does? Provide for an equitable share after drath?

  • Tangent002

    Well, no surprise there. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional.

  • Proud Amelekite

    I am somewhat surprised there are not more Christians upset about this. I would expect Christians to not mind harming the children raised by homosexuals, considering them “collateral damage” in the war against the LGBT. I suppose it is an optimistic sign of the times that some shred of humanity and conscience shines through my enemies on this matter.