ACLU Sues Michigan to Stop State From Contracting With Adoption Agencies That Won’t Place Children With Homosexuals

LANSING, Michigan — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit on behalf of four lesbian women in an effort to stop officials in Michigan from contracting with religious adoption agencies that decline to place children in homes without both a mother and a father.

“Plaintiffs bring this complaint to challenge Defendants’ practice of permitting State-contracted and taxpayer-funded child placing agencies to use religious criteria to screen prospective foster and adoptive parents for children in the foster care system and to turn away qualified families on the basis of sexual orientation,” the lawsuit, filed against the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Children’s Services Agency, reads.

While the ACLU claims that it is not seeking to challenge “the right of any private child placing agency to practice its religion,” it says that the State must ensure that the private placement agencies it hires are not screening prospective parents through the lens of their religious beliefs.

“DHHS is aware that these agencies are turning away these potentially qualified families solely for religious reasons but DHHS has not stopped them from engaging in this conduct,” the complaint states. “When the State delegates its statutory child-welfare responsibilities to private agencies, those private agencies must execute their state-contracted responsibilities subject to the same requirements applicable to the State.”

As of 2015, Michigan law provides that “a child placing agency shall not be required to provide any services if those services conflict with, or provide any services under circumstances that conflict with, the child placing agency’s sincerely held religious beliefs.” However, the ACLU says that the State shouldn’t be working with groups that decline to place children with homosexuals.

Its legal challenge is filed on behalf of four lesbian women who, since the law has gone into effect, contacted Christian and Catholic adoption agencies—specifically St. Vincent’s Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services—in an effort to adopt a child. Because both organizations operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, they do not place children in homes where there is not both a mother and a father.

“When somebody calls in with interest to become a foster parent or adoptive parent … if they let us know they’re unmarried, or if they’re gay or lesbian, we immediately recommend, make a referral to another agency … for other agencies that provide that service,” Jose Carrera, director of clinical services for St. Vincent Catholic Charities, told legislators when the Michigan law was first being considered.

  • Connect with Christian News

Representatives therefore told the women that the agencies could not be of assistance, or that “same-sex couples aren’t our area of expertise.”

The lesbian women state in their lawsuit that they “object to the use of taxpayer funds to underwrite and endorse religious beliefs to which they do not subscribe.” They also contend that allowing State-hired religious adoption agencies to decline to place children with homosexuals deprives homosexuals “of their rights protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

“There is no legitimate government interest served by denying children access to potentially qualified families based on a religious exclusion,” the complaint states.

The ACLU is seeking a court injunction banning the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Children’s Services Agency from contracting with, or providing taxpayer funding to, any child placement agency that “employ religious criteria in decisions regarding the screening of prospective foster and adoptive parents.”

Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, weighed in on the matter on Wednesday.

“Not only have the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Trinity Lutheran decisions reaffirmed long-standing principles by which government should respect the free exercise rights of organizations that seek to operate according to their deeply held beliefs, but such respect enables entities like faith-based adoption agencies to fill a critical need in society,” he said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Jack-b-Quicker

    We aren’t persecuting you for your religious beliefs, we only want to suppress your rights for the sake of others. -ACLU

    • MCrow

      All rights have limitations. I have the right to freedom of speech, but I can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded location. I have the right to freedom of the press, but I can’t publish something I know to be a lie which harms someone’s reputation

      • Jack-b-Quicker

        Yelling fire has malicious intent, thus should be limited. Media lies constantly and has for a long time but you are right, no one should lie. Again malicious in intent. What is malicious about making a choice to say no? There are hundreds of places out there. The joys of choice extend both ways. 🙂

        • MCrow

          Telling homosexual couples that they are of a lesser class, I would argue, is malicious intent. Regardless, the state should not be funding them if they decide to discriminate

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Knowingly placing children in a potentially harmful environment for no other reason than politics is saying you don’t give a wailing cat about what’s in the child’s best interest.

            It’s absolutely sick.

          • MCrow

            Any adoption is potentially harmful. Foster care is potentially harmful. I’m arguing that parents who want to adopt should not be discriminated against based on who they are married to.

          • The child’s welfare should always come first and that means keep perverts away from them.

          • MCrow

            How does it harm the child? If you’re arguing sexual abuse, bear in mind most cases of child molestation are heterosexual in nature and usually family members. Otherwise, this is the same argument as was directed at interracial marriages being unhealthy for children because they were ‘unnatural.’

          • Regardless of what you say or think there is a possibility of physical abuse, verbal abuse and above all….spiritual harm/abuse.

          • MCrow

            Ok, same answer as before: that possibility exists regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation. And spiritual abuse or harm how?

          • Members of the LGBT, that include homosexuals, are mentally and spiritually ill and their lives are extremely unstable. That would make them prone to the abuse of others including children. They are living a lie and living in direct violation of God’s Word engaging in sexual immorality and children in that environment will be either directly or indirectly indoctrinated to live a life of sexual sin and perversion also. Those who die unrepentant in their sins, including the sin of homosexuality, will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

          • MCrow

            Mentally ill by what definition? Current psychology does not recognize it as such. Spiritually ill is, in my mind, not real. As to abuse by other children, I’d argue that stems from the fact that certain adults argue that homosexuals are lesser beings for a variety of reasons and encourage their children to treat them poorly.

            Unless you have definitive, testable evidence that being a homosexual causes people to be unfit parents, your only recourse is to evangelize, and it is the duty of the government to remain impartial with regards to such acts.

            The US government is not a religious institute, they are not beholden to any definition of spirituality. Every state similarly is a non-religious establishment. The government in either case should not be contracting with an institute which discriminates for religious purposes, which is exactly what is happening here.

          • What I said is in complete agreement with God and His Holy Word and that is all that matters.

          • Sir Osis

            Bigotry and hate.

          • It is the truth of God and His Holy Word.

          • Ron Obvious

            What an evil thing to say. They aren’t ill in any sense of the word, unless you’re using a textbook from the 1940s.

          • I am using the Word of God.

          • Sir Osis

            I’d ask what your definition of “pervert” is but it’s probably an extremely broad definition.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I want you to tell me when discrimination became more important than the welfare of the child.

          • MCrow

            What child is being harmed by this? Giving the child two parents seems like a good outcome to me.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You’re trolling, right? You really didn’t just say it doesn’t matter as long there are two “parents” running the household?

          • MCrow

            So long as they are vetted and reviewed like any other adoptive parent, what is the harm? You are the one saying it causes harm: show your work

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Children belong in a home with a mother and father. Moira Greyland Peat. Robert Oscar Lopez. For starters. Children raised in a moral vacuum never turn out okay.

            Game. Set. Match.

          • MCrow

            I googled Christian child molestation and found one article detailing 12 children abused by Christian authorities in a month. Twelve. In a month. Moral vacuum, eh?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Irrelevant horsecrap.

            I stand by what I said.

            We’re done.

          • Sir Osis

            It’s NOT “irrelevant horsecrap” Matthew, will you WAKE UP and pay attention? The issue is a child’s safety. Two lesbians isn’t inherently a danger and couples are always screened. 12 Children being abused by Christian authorities as MCrow mentioned IS a danger to the child’s safety. Not irrelevant. VERY relevant.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            No, not relevant.

          • Sir Osis

            Completely relevant, Matthew. Completely.

          • Sir Osis

            Game. Set. Bigotry.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Of course. Speaking in opposition to allowing children into an environment of mental and sexual abuse is bigotry, just as opposing naked men shoving their genitals into the faces of boys or marching down a public street in broad daylight is bigotry.

            Get lost, sicko.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            When it’s Christian mental and sexual abuse, it’s OK though. That’s what you’re saying.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Red herring. FAIL.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Is it? Which is worse, when Christians sexually abuse children, or when pedophiles do?
            If you answered B, you’re a hypocrite. BOTH are unacceptable.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            What’s worse is when you try to change the subject. As it is not relevant, it is being ignored. Stay on topic.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Who brought pedophilia into the discussion to begin with? Why, I do believe it was you. As to WHY, well, that’s anyone’s guess…you have a lot of hate inside you.

          • Sir Osis

            And you’re narrow minded enough to believe that sexual abuse of kids comes from homosexuals and not from clergy. Wow. Just wow. I thought I’d read it all.

          • Sir Osis

            If he didn’t say it, I will. Homosexual parents aren’t a problem. An environment that hurts the child is the problem. Like raising them in a fundamentalist environment that teaches them to hate, for example.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Homosexual parents aren’t a problem.

            This sentence alone proves you incapable of giving an honest, coherent argument.

          • Sir Osis

            They’re not a problem. At least if you want to listen to experts on the subject and not a bunch of religious hate-speak.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Jephthah’s Daughters by Robert Oscar Lopez. They are the experts because they lived it.

          • Sir Osis

            Even if that WASN’T total horse crap, and I am not for a minute saying it’s not given that you believe it, it’s still one example and you want to claim that it goes for absolutely everyone. Dishonest and sick.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            In other words, all these people are liars and you are telling the truth.

            Who is being dishonest and sick? Moira Greyland Peat, whose father was a pedophile who died in prison, and was abused by her mother and her lesbian lover, or you?

            You are not even using your real name here, but you want a reasonable person to believe you are more credible than her?

          • Sir Osis

            Why aren’t you, Matthew? What happened to slidellman4life and Jason Todd?

            Why now are you talking about pedophiles when the subject has been homosexuality? You want us to believe YOU are not being dishonest when you blur the subjects so blatantly?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Why now are you talking about pedophiles when the subject has been homosexuality?

            So you would rather dodge instead of answer questions? There’s no subject change here. Just you being dishonest and sick.

          • Sir Osis

            Dodging what? You bring up a hypothetical pedophile who may or may not exist when the whole subject here is homosexuality and try to pass it off as the same thing? and I am the one who’s dishonest and sick?

          • Peter Leh

            I want to know why you have not adopted these kids to keep them from the homosexuals?

            Otherwise a family is waiting. every child wants a family.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            This has nothing to do with me.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            not a family ….. and “wanting” is not the basis for a decision ……..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so if an adult married a known pedophile …… we should not “discriminate”? …….

          • MCrow

            This is why I said they need to be vetted and reviewed

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so their being homosexual is not part of that “vetting” …………. it is who they are partners with …….

          • MCrow

            Unless you can definitively prove that being homosexual damages the child, then no, it shouldn’t be considered part of the vetting. If a pedophile is adopting, that is different as they have been shown to damage children.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and there is plenty of evidence it does …. “If a pedophile is adopting, that is different” … on what basis …. you have no evidence that if they are raised by a pedophile that it “damages the child” ….. so why should that be ……….

          • MCrow

            Evidence suggests that most child molestation is done by heterosexuals, usually someone outside the immediate family but close, like an uncle, family friend, or teacher.

            Pedophilia seeks to enter sexual relations with children. This is damaging as it has been shown, through study, to cause long term psychiatric damage to the child involved. There is also a power dynamic, where the child is rendered helpless to the more powerful adult. There is a reason this is considered to be rape.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Pedophilia seeks to enter sexual relations with children. This is damaging as it has been shown, through study, to cause long term psychiatric damage to the child involved.”

            really … because recent “science” is saying something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ……….

          • MCrow

            A bunch of people posting in dark corners of the internet isn’t science

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            wrong … and i guess that makes you a “science denier” ……….

            The Archives of Sexual Behavior journal published in the past year two studies by psychologist Bruce Rind, both of which claim that “minor-adult sex tends not to be reported as a bad experience, as unwanted, or as one with longstanding negative consequences,” Regnerus explained.

            Archives of Sexual Behavior – Wikipedia
            The Archives of Sexual Behavior is a peer-reviewed academic journal in sexology. It is the official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research.

            WOW …. PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNAL ….. is that not the “gold standard” of the “science” crowd ….. and does that make you a “science denier” ………..

          • MCrow

            That paper has been dismissed on numerous grounds due to a plethora, so had failed peer review. The only people who use it nowadays are pedophilia advocates who, like you, think one paper is proof of what everyone must believe.

          • MCrow

            *plethora of errors

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … and it was PEER REVIEWED … the gold standard …….. ” only people who use it nowadays” …. you mean IN THE LAST YEAR SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN …… WOW ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            “…so had FAILED peer review…”

            Read what’s written. Not what you want to read.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            back at ‘cha sport ………

          • MCrow

            That is intellectually dishonest and you know it. First, the paper was published in 1998. Unless you are a time traveler, it has had 19 years in academic circles. Second, Wikipedia, the source you cite, has an entire page devoted to showing what is wrong with it because of the peer review you despise so much. Last, the only people I have seen use his paper are those who seek an excuse to harm children. They are usually people on some Internet forum. Hardly scientists

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The Public Discourse com

            The Archives of Sexual Behavior, a journal I respect and have recently published in and reviewed for, has printed a pair of studies by Bruce Rind in the past year. The recent publication of his work marks a significant, unnoticed, and unnerving turn in the dissemination and consumption of research on sex and sexuality.

            Almost twenty years ago, both houses of Congress and the American Psychological Association condemned Rind’s claims, published in the August 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, that the long-term damages caused by child sexual abuse are overestimated. I would have thought that nearly twenty years, a concurrent resolution of Congress, and a fair bit of social trauma would have convinced him to shift topics.

            But I was wrong. His new studies are on the same theme: sex between adults and minors as young as thirteen. Rind is banking on a more amenable political and scholarly atmosphere in which to conclude comparable things. And from the sound of it—or rather, the utter lack of sound—he has gotten his wish. There has been no congressional concern, no APA scrutiny, just silence.

          • MCrow

            Ok. So he used the same debunked information. Whoop de doo. Fun fact: he’s still wrong for the same reasons he was wrong before. Being published doesn’t make him right. It allows others to look at his data and analyze it, and do their own research. In some ways, I actually prefer he be published so others can look and see why he’s wrong. Again, there’s been numerous studies on why his data was wrong before, so if he’s presented nothing new, they still hold.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            still doing it … and …. no one is raising an eyebrow at this time ….

          • MCrow

            Are you asking about peer review or public outcry? The two have little to do with one another.

            For peer review, his research has already been found to be faulty, and his conclusions were found to be in error. You can, quite literally, just go back and say “ditto.” It also takes time. If he has any new information, it needs to be properly analyzed, which takes time. What would raise far more eyebrows is if he had new information. That’s why it generated attention the first time: it was new.

            As for public outcry, keep in mind that 20 years ago, the idea of flat earthers was rediculous. Now, we know that they are sadly more common than we thought thanks to how information is disseminated. We now know that people have numerous backward and even harmful beliefs. It’s sad, but we have accepted that it is a realit.

          • Sir Osis

            There is NO evidence it does. Zero.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure there is ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You are bringing the unrelated subject of pedophiles into this discussion. Why?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You didn’t ignore me if you typed “ignore”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Have fun with that.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …

          • Spot on!

          • Ron Obvious

            What you say is absolutely true. It’s only when people realize that when you say “potentially harmful environment” you’re talking about homosexuals that your true nature comes out. THAT is what is sick.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            What you say is absolutely true.

            And obvious. Thanks.

          • Ron Obvious

            Now if you could only ditch the stone age bigotry part.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            On whose part? There’s no bigotry in opposing what has already been discussed here. And if you disagree, you are probably a sex offender, in which case you should be jail and not on the internet in any capacity.

          • Ron Obvious

            What do you consider to be a sex offender? To most people that answer would be pretty clear but in your case I think you are probably talking about homosexuals and transgenders. In other words, people who AREN’T sex offenders. You hate homosexuals and have stated in the past that you’d like to see them killed. Fact.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            What do you consider to be a sex offender?

            I already answered that question.

            You hate homosexuals and have stated in the past that you’d like to see them killed.

            Prove it. Which will never happen, because I have never said I wanted to see homosexuals killed.

          • Ron Obvious

            A sex offender is not a homosexual. That’s wrong.
            I’m not going through your list of hateful statements to find the needle in the haystack. The important thing is you know you said it.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            A sex offender is not a homosexual.

            And there it is. Someone saying homosexuals are not sex offenders.

            You are sick and disgusting. And most likely a sex offender.

            While this in and of itself is grounds for the mods here to ban you, I am not going to wait. You are so blocked it is beyond belief.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Homosexuals AREN’T sex offenders. In fact, you might be a homosexual and never have sex with anyone your whole life. It’s not what you do, it’s what you are, what you are attracted to. So now we’re in thought crime territory? Really?

            And homosexuals who are in committed relationships aren’t sex offenders either. What a vile thing to say.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Homosexuals AREN’T sex offenders.

            Flagged and blocked. Pig feces.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Reported.

          • Jack-b-Quicker

            I don’t think anyone said that.

          • MCrow

            Which part?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        ” I have the right to freedom of speech, but I can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded location.”

        yes you can … if there is a fire ………….

        “I have the right to freedom of the press, but I can’t publish something I know to be a lie which harms someone’s reputation”

        and yet it is done everyday by the “press” in this country ……….

    • james blue

      So you’d be okay with the state contracting with an agency that refuses to place children in Christian homes?

      • Failed logic and False analogy.

        • james blue

          Explain please.

      • Jack-b-Quicker

        Happens all the time. Its life, grow up and move on. Christians get crapped on all the time and we are supposed to suck it up. Now its your turn.

        • james blue

          When does it happen?

          “My turn”?

    • Peter Leh

      “we only want to suppress your rights for the sake of others”

      there is truth in this. especially when your “rights” violate other’s rights. Like sitting a counter, ordering a cake, or adopting a child.

    • SFBruce

      No right is absolute, and that includes religious liberty. Adoption agencies that accept taxpayer funds must be willing to consider all taxpaying applicants, and that includes the gay ones.

      • Jack-b-Quicker

        What makes you think they get gov funds? And, so what if they do. You like choices, go make another somewhere else. Why hassle folks? Finally, the rights to life, liberty, and fruitfulness is an absolute as it is guaranteed by our Creator. For you though maybe your rights are subjective but not mine.

        • SFBruce

          From this article:

          “Plaintiffs bring this complaint to challenge Defendants’ practice of permitting State-contracted and taxpayer-funded child placing agencies to use religious criteria to screen prospective foster and adoptive parents for children in the foster care system and to turn away qualified families on the basis of sexual orientation,” the lawsuit, filed against the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Children’s Services Agency, reads.

          The emphasis is mine. That’s what makes me think the agencies referenced receive taxpayer funds. It’s not in the interest of children who need a family for adoption agencies to refuse people based on criteria which nothing to do with their ability to provide a good home.

          • Jack-b-Quicker

            Just because you pay taxes does not mean you own the things that are paid for by it. You don’t own the roads, you don’t own the tanks and fighter jets, etc. Why not instead go after the gov that gives tax money to folks that you disagree with rather than hassle the folks you disagree with? Seems you might be more productive with the latter. Besides, a good home consists of mom and dad. Need both of sound mind and willing to play the role God gave them at birth.

          • Freezefred45

            Can you prove a home consisting of a mom and a mom or a dad and a dad can’t be a good home?

          • Jack-b-Quicker

            Yes, look at society where in the majority of homes this is the case and now look again at society. Case closed.

          • Freezefred45

            False comparison. There is a difference between two moms and one mom, that being one mom.

          • Jack-b-Quicker

            Would three moms be better? How about 4 or 5 moms?

    • Freezefred45

      Rights? Access to government funds is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT!

  • NCOriolesFan

    Wow, the total and absolute selfishness of the ACLU to expose innocent children to the immoral deviancy of adults. God will certainly punish those people who deliberately harm His children. There is a scriptural warning of harming children, I forget where.

    • Peter Leh

      IN NC you should already know this…. but every person in my family that was violated, abused, and raped was by a heterosexual family member.

  • Reason2012

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination …”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Even Jesus points out marriage is a man and a woman.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

  • All that is LGBT is a sin and perversion and that means those who practice it or condone it are perverts. Homosexuals or any other type of pervert should never be allowed to foster, adopt or otherwise have children in their care.

    • Peter Leh

      every person in my family that was violated, abused, and raped was by a heterosexual family member.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        “And christian… btw
        one was a preacher”

        ummmm ….. no they were not… and no he was not ……….. despite the label ……..

        • Peter Leh

          yes.. I assure you he was.

          but if he asked for forgiveness god is ok with him and he is now in heaven, right?

          meanwhile… here on earth

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ok … a person acting in that type of conduct …. while wearing a sign that says “christian” ….. AINT …… and “but if he asked for forgiveness god is ok with him and he is now in heaven, right?” … probably NOPE ….. but that is out of our hands ….

            see …. like antifa ….. walking around with signs that say …. ” Dont hate” … and then clubbing a person over the head with that same sign ….. guess what …. they be hatin’ …. and a sign or a label of some sort does not make anyone what the sign says …. you can label a bag of manure “Rose Petals” ……. does not make it so ….. cause men be liars …. and they use all kinds of disguises to hide their sins ….. including “pastor” and the church ……..

          • Peter Leh


            “.. probably NOPE ….. but that is out of our hands ….”

            at lest you admit many things are out of your hands…. that is a start my friend.

            “What else is “out of your hands”…. my friend?

            ….. cause men be liars …. and they use all kinds of disguises to
            hide their sins ….. including “pastor” and the church ……..”

            yes…. cherry picker can be another name. I think we can all agree that abuse is not of the bible but how many examples of abuse can we reference by “christians” whether it is by my family members or those who inhibit equal protection under the law?

            Yes we can say the Bible says this… and label it “rose pedals”… the everyone say “I smell manure” and the church says, today and historically, ” Gods law is over the Constitution.”

            How is this water you and I are swimming?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “can we reference by “christians” whether it is by my family members or those who inhibit equal protection under the law?””How about let us love or neighbor and trust in the providence of god?””at lest you admit many things are out of your hands…. that is a start my friend.”

            so which is it …….. can “i” have some CONSISTENCY please …………

        • ThroatwobblerMangrove

          No True Scotsman fallacy

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            does not apply to christianity ………… FAIL ………..

          • Ron Obvious

            Why wouldn’t it apply to Christianity? Of course it does. Especially to Christians who tell other Christians they’re not Christians.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are OBVIOUSLY not a christain, Ron …….. so what you think of it is not of any concern to us …………

          • Ron Obvious

            You don’t NEED to be a Christian to spot a logical fallacy, Amos.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you do if you want to apply it to christianity and it does not ….. it is specifically excluded …..

          • Ron Obvious

            No, you don’t. It applies not because of Christianity but because of your lack of understanding what the fallacy is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it does not apply due to your lack of understanding of what christianity is ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Absolutely applies to Christianity. Actually, to exclusionary Christians.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … sorry …. christianity is not a “logic” problem ….. and while God is COMPLETELY and EMINENTLY logical …… your only fallacy is that you try to apply that fallacy to christianity ….. christianity is specifically EXCLUDED because of what christianity is …. so all homosexuals are pedophiles …. right ….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, sorry. There is nothing “magic” about Christianity that would exempt it from the No True Scotsman fallacy, given that the fallacy itself is based on simple reasoning.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … FAIL …. NTS does not apply ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, that’s nonsense. The internet is littered with Christian examples. And in fact telling someone else they’re a false Christian is about the best example there is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NTS is an application to a logic problem …. FAIL …. christianity is not a logic problem …. FAIL again …. the only problem you have is christianity is not logical to you …. because you do not understand it ….. you can litter wherever you please …. but that trash does not float here ….. so again … all homosexuals are PEDOPHILES … right ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I don’t know what “all homosexuals are pedophiles” is except a lie, but it’s certainly not an example of No True Scotsman. It’s not a logic problem, it’s a logical fallacy when you try to discredit someone else when they don’t follow the same belief in the exact same way you do. You’re guilty of it all right.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I don’t know what “all homosexuals are pedophiles” is except a lie”

            so No True Homosexual is a pedophile …. hmmmm … shoe on other foot i see ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            That makes no sense, and isn’t an example of No True Scotsman.
            Here’s an example you should be able to understand, and helpfully includes a Christian example similar to the one you’ve been using:

            “The example this fallacy is named for goes like this: one Scotsman
            declares that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Another points out
            that he’s a Scotsman, and he puts sugar on his porridge. To that, the
            first replies that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. The
            problem here is that whether or not those who put sugar on their
            porridge are “true” Scotsmen is a subjective claim, or just a statement
            of opinion. Opinions are weak evidence for an argument. The porridge
            example is a trivial one, but this fallacy shows up in all sorts of
            sinister ways. Often, it’s used to exclude people from a group. How
            often have you heard that someone isn’t a real man, a real American, or a
            true Christian for a “distasteful” quality they have or action they’ve
            taken?”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            thats why it does not apply to christianity ….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Right, here’s another random internet example of how it applies perfectly to Christianity.

            https://www(dot)logicallyfallacious(dot)com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/135/No-True-Scotsman

            “In 2011, Christian broadcaster, Harold Camping, (once again) predicted the end of the world via Jesus, and managed to get many Christians to join his alarmist campaign. During this time, and especially after the Armageddon date had passed, many Christian groups publicly declared that Camping is not a “true Christian”. On a personal note, I think Camping was and is as much of a Christian as any other self-proclaimed Christian and religious/political/ethical beliefs aside, I admire him for having the cojones to make a falsifiable claim about his religious beliefs.”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … proves nothing …. Camping was not acting in line with scripture and it was not the first time ….. so what …. christians decide who is a christian and who is not …. the christian is authorized by scripture to do so … that nullifies any NTS …. and NTS applies to logical matters not spiritual matters …. misapplication of your “fallacy” is your problem … not ours …….. FAIL …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Camping was a Christian. He was just a Christian who had ideas about Christianity that you disagree with. You are not the person who gets to label him.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            well …. first ….. he is dead …. and not our problem ….. two …. some may have called him that …. so what …… what do you care … you are not a christian ….. three ….. and this is more important ….. NTS does not apply ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            OK, so you just admitted that you don’t understand how NTS works.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it does not apply …… FAIL ………. christians decide who is and who is not a christian ….. not pagans like yourself ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It applies. There’s no reason it wouldn’t apply.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            SCRIPTURE is the reason it does not apply ……………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It applies every time you call someone else a false Christian. Scripture does nothing to invalidate it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … it does not apply when Burger King says what McDonalds makes is not a Whopper …. it does not apply when MsDonalds says what Burger King makes is not a Big Mac …. and it does not apply to christians when then denounce false teachers that preach things unchristian ………… FAIL …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You still don’t understand No True Scotsman. When you claim to be a better or truer Christian than someone else based entirely on a matter of opinion, you are guilty of NTS. That’s what it is. None of this “no true homosexual” or Burger King nonsense. I can’t believe you’re being this willfully ignorant about it. I KNOW other people here have schooled you on this in the past. You just don’t want to hear it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. YOU still do not understand CHRISTIANITY ….. as you are a PAGAN ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It wouldn’t matter if I was a purple Buddhist alligator. This has absolutely nothing to do with me. It’s about you not understanding what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. And refusing to accept that Christians can be, and are, often the worst violators.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you can apply it to that …. not christianity …FAIL ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Absolutely false, as I said, your failure to understand the No True Scotsman fallacy does not give you magical powers to repel it when you commit it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is absolutely false that you can apply it to christianity …… scripture determines what a christian is ….. not your phoney made up ill”logic” rules ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Christianity is just a school of thought like anything else. So just as Christianity is subject to criticism, it’s subject to the rules of reason and logic. But this isn’t really about Christianity anyway, as you know. It’s about you. You don’t understand the No True Scotsman fallacy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. AGAIN ……. it does not apply due to your lack of understanding of what christianity is …… and you just demonstrated your COMPLETE LACK of that understanding ……. you do not know what it is ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Incorrect. You demonstrated that you don’t know the first thing about
            NTS by saying something about “no true homosexual” which doesn’t make any sense in terms of the fallacy itself. NTS is about snobbery. And you cannot tell me that Christianity is free of snobbery, my goodness, we wouldn’t have so many millions of Christians attacking each other’s practices every day if that was the case. Christianity is the PERFECT poster boy for NTS. But it doesn’t have to be, if only Christians like yourself would learn to let people practice their faith in peace and not keep claiming to be the one true gold standard.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NTS does not apply …….. ignored ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Incorrect. You have repeatedly proven you do not understand the fallacy. You are dismissed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            does not apply …. ignored …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            “No True homosexual” proves you do not understand. Fail. Dismissed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Dismissed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Dismissed…

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            This conversation is over, Amos. You lost. You can leave now. Dismissed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Dismissed, Amos.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Romans
            16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
            16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

            NTS does not apply …. you lose ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            That verse relates in no way to NTS or how you have failed to understand it. You lose.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            This is a christian forum …. we discuss topics related to chrstianity ….. your injection of NTS does not apply as to “if only Christians like yourself would learn to let people practice their faith in peace and not keep claiming to be the one true gold standard.” ….. because there is a standard and we are to be held to it ….. the above scripture from Romans is that standard that christians are to be held to account ……. and your being a pagan gives you no authority to alter that ….. and you lose ….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It doesn’t matter. Christianity is not the point. Your miunderstanding of the English language is the issue. The main point of the NTS fallacy is snobbery. “No true homosexual”, which you said earlier, shows you have no understanding. How can someone claim to be a better or truer homosexual? It makes no sense. And those were YOUR words. The issue is people like you claiming to be better and truer CHRISTIANS. When you say that, you violate the NTS fallacy. Christianity, scripture, etc. do not invalidate the NTS fallacy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …..

          • KP

            Are you serious?? You are on a Christian website arguing over a stupid point. Don’t you have anything better to do? What difference does it make to you what someone believes? Why are only Christian’s not allowed to have an opinion? “We are the worst violators of your stupid NTS argument?” Are you really serious???? What are you, 6 yrs old?? These discussions get more juvenile every day. The strong delusion is really setting in.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            To answer your questions:
            1) Yes.
            2) No.
            3) I couldn’t care less, as long as they aren’t lying or misrepresenting facts.
            4) Yes.
            5) No.

            Now that you’re done venting your spleen, maybe ask yourself who’s really got the delusion going on.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            oh … and four …. YES WE DO …….. any christian is AUTHORIZED to do that …. whether YOU AGREE or not …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            If you get to do it to them, then they get to do it to you, too. Fair is fair. Which means NOBODY is a true Christian.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUUUUUPPPPPP!!!!!!! …………….they get to do it to me …. SO WHAT …. WHAT do you care …. you are a PAGAN ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Your misunderstanding of the No True Scotsman fallacy reminds me of Kirk Cameron and his crocoduck.

      • A true Christian will never do anything like that. Calling one’s self a Christian and actually being one is two different things entirely.

        • james blue

          Almost zero Christians in the world then, because almost zero live a sin free life.

          • No one lives a sin free life. That is not what I said.

          • james blue

            So it’s just the sins of others precluding them from being Christian, your sins get a pass?

          • Again, I never said that.

          • james blue

            You basically said person “X” cannot be a Christian if they did certain things, because Christians would not do that, well Christians do un-Christian things all the time and I’m betting you have at some point too.

            Sin is Sin

          • KP

            No, sin that is realized and repented of, acknowledged that Christ is the only one who paid for the penalty of that sin, turn from that sin is what Christianity is about. Continuing in a sin is…well, not being a Christian. These are God’s rules, not mine. Continuing in a known sin is the same as rebellion which God says is the same as withcraft. Yes, Christian’s sin everyday and we are suppose to confess and repent when God reveals it, but if they continue in that specific sin, they really didn’t repent, did they?

          • Lee Cumbie

            KP, Very nice. I would condition your last statement though. I assume you meant by continue, that you mean shamelessly continue in that specific sin.
            There are many who struggle with particular sins. It is commonly referred to as someone’s ‘personal demon’. In many cases, Christians are greedy, are envious, are not honest, are gluttonous, etc. over and over, and repent over and over. It is the aspiration and determination to defeat these personal weaknesses that is key to true repentance. It is not that easy to change your basic nature although it does occur over time with effort and faith.

          • KP

            Lee, in my personal experience, my worst sins, the ones that were damaging me and my loved ones the most, I kept going back to, like the song says, A slow fade. They were separating me from fellowship with God. But once I made him Lord of my life and totally withdrew from the things (situations, people) that were drawing me back to those, I was able to put them behind me. Weaknesses like glutoni are struggles, but do these separate us from fellowship with God? Not in my life now. These weaknesses hurt me because they hurt Him and I apologize, Against You and You alone have I sinned. Kind of what Paul says about that which I don’t want to do, I do, but he was not murdering Christian’s anymore. I thought I was saved when I was sinning, rinse, repent, sinning, rinse, repent, but now I am not so sure because my relationship to the Lord is totally different and I do not want to do the things that I used to nor do I keep going back to them. I see so many Christians who seem to ‘accept’ their sin as if they have no need of repenting or turning away from it because the world is telling them they are OK even tho God says in His word they are not OK. He tells us to come out of the world, not to think on those things, to abide in Him. When he lists sins that condemn to hell, he gives a list and says these are things that you used to do then, but no longer do. So how far are ‘Christian’s’ willing to go to think that Grace will cover it all. At what point is continuing blatant sin (& being proud of it) that He says will send you to hell acceptable or not acceptable to God? This is what I see much of the Church doing today, compromising at every level, and from what I read in the Bible, that is not going to cut it. Why does He say that we will say, Lord I followed you and did this and that for you and He says, I never knew you. Why does He ask if when He comes back, will He find The Faith on the Earth. We have to be careful to accept what His Word says about Him and not create a god in our own image that we want Him to be which is what I see happening today. When my life changed was when I was told by a discerning Christian that I had a ‘Spirit of Religion’. When I figured that out, everything else changed. When I sought Him with all of my heart, that is when I found Him, just like He said. When I finally sat down at the age of 50 and read the Bible from beginning to end, instead of reading at it in Church on Sunday, I realized that we no longer had a reverent fear of the Lord in the World. If we did, we would not be doing any of the things that are happening today. Sorry for the long reply, but it is what the Lord put on my heart.
            Hebrews 10: The Just Live by Faith:
            26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

            32 But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: 33 partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; 34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. 35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise:
            37 “For yet a little while,
            And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.
            38 Now the just shall live by faith;
            But if anyone draws back,
            My soul has no pleasure in him.”
            39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

          • Lee Cumbie

            Think aspiration. Being a Christian is about aspiring to sinless perfection, not necessarily achieving it. True repentance when we fail, determination not to fail again, all within the knowledge we can’t hide our failures from the one who matters. It takes aspiration to be something to call yourself that thing. It is a process, not a result.

          • james blue

            I don’t disagree with that, but not sure how that refutes the point of what I wrote.

            He was saying a “true Christian” wouldn’t do it, so if he did do it he can’t be a “true Christian”

          • Lee Cumbie

            I wasn’t actually disagreeing with you. I was impeaching the line of reasoning that sinning (or not) is the primary indicator of being a Christian. A hallmark of Christianity is humility so chest-thumping about (supposedly) being sinless is less Christian than a Christian’s occasional misstep. It is a mindset, not a result.

        • Sir Osis

          No True Scotsman fallacy. Your definition of Christian isn’t the one people are measured by.

          • Geography has nothing to do with this. It is God’s definition not mine.

    • Eldrida Urika

      All that is CHRISTIAN is a lie and it’s mind control that makes them want to practice it and anyone that condones it are evil people doomed to hell.
      Catholics or any other type of Christian should never be allowed to foster, adopt or otherwise have children in their care.
      They should be sterilized for good measure too.

      That’s my reply AS A CHRISTIAN to your ignorance. Act like an adult Christian + stop being ignorant about what is true and what is not. If you don’t limit the search to what you want to hear, you will find that it brings almost a

      Did you like my mimic of your statement since it’s about you instead of someone else?
      I just wanted you to hear it from another view. I don’t believe in it any more than I believe what you said.

      • So, as a Christian, please tell me what is true and what is not true.

        • Eldrida Urika

          I just told you exactly that. The first quote was a mimic of your own. It was pretty unfriendly and Christians are supposed to be good caring people who do not treat others badly, including speaking of others badly because they sin. We all sin, and we were told by Jesus not to judge other people but just their sin. Even that he made clear that we were not to do more than point out a sin.
          I was pointing out that you should not say what you said about people because you would not want that said about you. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Put yourself in the other persons shoes and find out what they are really about not what you think they are.
          Jesus told us to love each other and to treat each other the way we want to be treated, and I don’t think you want to be spoken of like that yourself. I was making that point.

          Nothing much else.

          • Telling the Truth of God and His Holy Word is almost always a hard thing for those bound for Hell to hear. Better than watching them go to Hell and doing nothing. Do you believe perverts should be able to adopt or foster children? Do you believe Jesus is okay with that?

          • Eldrida Urika

            I tried 3 times to shorten this but it kept regrowing so I apologize but it is lengthy. I’m not trying to make them long I just have to make sure that you will not misunderstand what I say. That unfortunately takes more words.

            1) Do you think Jesus would allow it to exist if it was NOT something he approved of by him? He has to allow Satan to do anything at all to his children. And the reason why he allows it is always the most righteous of reasons. He is the Big Boss in control of everything, after all. Everything that happens has a reason behind it, because God used the good and the bad in his plans. When the devil is annoying you, it is likely to teach you a lesson that God wants you to learn. It’s not always obvious but a lesson is there. God doesn’t do anything for no reason.

            2) I don’t believe that homosexuality is a perversion like you do, so that would affect my answer too. It is a sin that some individual commit. It will be punished for exactly the same way as sinners will all be punished. Their sin is not greater than other sin.

            3) I believe that Jesus told us to love everyone and to help non-believers to believe by being a good person who can be admired by others. That is what Jesus told us would bring others to be saved.

            I believe that we are representatives of Jesus and He told us to behave like He did and we would be considered a wise choice like the house builder on a rock foundation. He told us that it is necessary to follow his will, as it is spoken as a command. For me He is a King after all so yeah, I listen/read and obey. I repent for the times I do not present myself in public with a good Christlike behavior as it is a sin not to do His Will.

            So it’s a tricky question and knowing His Word, helps me to understand that as it is not our job to punish people and words were not to be used as a punishment. We are all sinners and have no authority on Earth to punish outside of the law of the land. He gave us 2 examples to show us that it is not our place here on Earth to punish.
            He also gave us the 2 commands about loving . Love God with all our hearts, all our soul, all our minds and with all our strength. Then there is the Treat others the way you want others to treat you. Those are very wise words and if they were done by everyone there would be a lot more love and less hate and sin around.

            I use my ability to find words that are not as judgemental as yours. I don’t have to say they are perverted, all I say is that they are sinners.

            My ma used to tell us that we will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. So be nice and it will work for your benefit, be grumpy/mean and it will work against you.

            I think Jesus agrees with me that loves goes a lot further than criticism to help people be good to others.
            Calling them names is not as effective anymore. They’ve heard it all. They don’t care what people call them. Names like that are to make them feel ashamed and they aren’t. They do not look at it as a sin. Obviously. If they did they would care.
            So calling anyone by names like that, only shows that you ran out of more effective words, and that you are only left with the words that will make others think badly of the people instead of the way we are supposed to be about the sin, not the person. I do not see the point in making someone feel bad instead of helping them understand the point of it being called a sin and about repentance with salvation used as the attraction to wanting to not sin.
            Would we try so hard not to sin if we did not have the promise of salvation?
            Would we want to obey someone who just tells you to, instead of showing us the way he can provide for us, protect us, and guide us and most of all, his love for us all.
            The whole reason Jesus came as a sacrifice for all of our sin, is because God loved us and wanted to have a way to do it without using the threats of punishment for everything and everyone. He loved us and wanted to be able to connect with us, and it was the only way he could do it and have it stay as the final sacrifice. His sacrifice of his son was because he loved us and wanted to be with us again, but had to get ‘around’ the laws that everyone seemed to be disobeying. He wanted to make it easier for people to love him and each other.
            A lot of people do not believe this, but it is something you have to know the bible to understand and see the truth in it. He never stopped saying he loved us, even when he was angry he still loved and forgave us. People have to learn how to forget the things that others do and forgive them as people who sin . Our relationship with each other should not be based on what I do that are sins, or what you do that are sins. Jesus forgets our sins as soon as we repent, and that is what we are supposed to do too.
            There are many more sinners that you are not aware of what their sins are, and you obviously can’t call them names or talk about their specific sins. Why do you think you need to speak badly to other sinners? Jesus said love everyone. That includes the sinners you find the most offensive that you found out about their sin because they wanted the equal rights that Jesus would never have denied them.
            Forget about others sin and think about your own salvation. Think about helping others to believe as you do. That’s what Jesus told us to do. Troubling yourself about a situation that you have no control over yourself, allows for stress that is not necessary. Trust God and let him guide us to what he wants done. Not our will, His will be done.

    • Freezefred45

      Fortunately, under the first amendment, what is and isn’t sin is irrelevant to the government.

  • Peter Leh

    The fact is….. if we christians do not want children to go into a family of homosexuals then we just adopt them ALL, keeping them from others.

    We dont. SO therefore we would rather them NOT have a family at all.

    actions are so loud I cant here what you are saying.

  • Cady555

    The state cannot discriminate against citizens just because some religious people have irrational biases unsupported by data.

    When the state hires an organization to carry out state responsibilities, that organization is subject to the same requirements as the state. This means that orgs the state hires cannot discriminate against clients based on religion, sexual orientation, race or any other factors.

    No org is required to act as an agent of the state in foster care or adoption, but if they do they must follow the law.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “irrational biases unsupported by data.”

      right … because they have RATIONAL biases supported by the truth …………..

  • Michael C

    Everyone I know who was raised by gays or lesbians was abused hugely. Naturally the left-wing media will not let those stories be told.

    • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

      I have a friend who mom is a lesbian and she had a messed up life.She wanted a mom and a dad. A really nice girl.

      • Eldrida Urika

        That’s sad. A lot of kids wish for Mom’s and Dad’s but have a reason why they couldn’t have both. Too many reasons to list.
        A friend could be a friend when you were young or now as an adult.
        It wasn’t because of the fact her mom was a lesbian that she had a messed up life. That one fact is unlikely to make anyone messed up unless the relationship broke down. Everyone loves their mother and even when they disagree they allow things they would not allow for others but only for mom, or forgive them. Or wish they could.
        It isn’t like a lesbian would raise her child differently than any other woman, and the only only way that might be different is about accepting other people’s differences which is actually a valuable trait.
        They do not have to teach any sex any more than a heterosexual mother does. They would not expect their child to be queer because they believe that not everyone is born a gay.
        So I don’t understand how it was because her mom was a lesbian that messed up her life and made her wish for 2 parents any different than any other child, and besides, you describe her as a really nice girl. Her mother did a good job raising her if she is a really nice girl.

        • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

          It is sad for my friend. And you don’t even care that her life was so messes up…………………………….

          And I still do not trust you………………

          • Eldrida Urika

            I care, I’m sorry if that was not in my reply, I do care but lives are not messed up from one thing, it usually takes many things.
            Also, How can you post about someone you have no idea of? Can you explain why you would not trust me with my few posts.
            I just joined so you can excuse me if I tell you I am not the person you think I am.

            I have not posted anything but my own opinion. I can see not agreeing, but I do not understand not trusting.

            If you are willing, would you mind telling me, it would help me understand why you decided to say that.

            Perhaps a case of mistake of identity? That would make sense.
            Blessings!

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            I do not believe you. And I di not trust you.

          • Eldrida Urika

            Should I trust you then? I don’t understand the whole reason for this distrust and I’m trying to allow you to have a personal view of me, but it’s not easy when you will not believe what I have said. Heck I have practically told my life story with all my posts all put together by now. I am an open and honest person. I don’t know how to help you believe that, so I will not be troubled about it as I believe the truth will be evident over time and you won’t have to wonder or distrust once you are in a position to know whether I am that person or not, and since I know I am not, you can take as long as you need to get to see what I am like and I guess compare it to whomever you think I am.
            I’ll leave you to watching and see if there is as much alike with this other person as makes my identity a false one.
            Please keep watching over me, as I am not afraid of having anything looked at closely.I am who God says I am, and I don’t know whether the other poster believes that or not, but I do. I am a Child of God and a part of a peculiar people favored by God, our creator.
            Ask me anything and I will answer it. I have nothing to hide.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            You don’t have to trust me as I am a Bible Believing Christian. And I still do not trust you.

          • Nick Halflinger

            Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
            Bomb#20: You are false data.
            Pinback: Hmmm?
            Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
            Pinback: Hello… bomb?
            Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
            Pinback: Hey, bomb?
            Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
            Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Please read my response to the troll above and act accordingly.

    • SFBruce

      I don’t know how many people you know who were raised by gay parents; even so, I’m pretty sure it’s not a large enough sample to make legitimate generalizations about all gay parents. It happens that all the people I know who experienced childhood abuse were raised by heterosexuals, but I know that doesn’t indict all of them.

      • Michael C

        I value the first-person accounts of people much more than I value propaganda. I certainly don’t trust your type to be objective.

        Totally aside from the ones I know personally, local news outlets do cover instances of these “couples” abusing their adopted children, although these are ignored at the national level.

        • SFBruce

          Given the substance and tone of your first comment, I’m not surprised that you don’t trust “my type” to be objective, but I’m curious: tell me specifically what factual errors I’ve made and/or what’s invalid about the logic I’ve applied?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I’m not surprised that you don’t trust “my type” to be objective,

            This is probably because the LGBTQW community has been shown to be liars on a pathological scale.

            Of course, this could be because you cannot afford to be honest for fear of the consequences. For example, you want to boff our kids. Now, you won’t come out and say this because that would result in the type of bloodshed that would make Orlando look like a game of Duck Hunt. So you are being patient, pushing misogyny (aka “trans rights”) with the same vigor as homosexual rights. But people are paying attention, seeing the open promotion of pedophilia on YouTube and Twitter and the recent resurrection of the Rind study, and the absolute silence from the LGBTQW community as it includes people within their own ranks.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            That’s….about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read here, which is saying a lot. I don’t know what’s more repulsive, your casting such a wide net over the LGBT community to call them all pathological liars, or the way you make zero distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles. What on earth the Rind study has to do with any of this is anyone’s guess. You’re swinging your hate bat at about 15 different things at once to the point where it’s hard to guess what you’re even talking about. All anyone knows is that you’re crazy angry.

          • SFBruce

            I will simply note that, like Michael C, you haven’t even tried to question the actual response I made to him. Instead, you’ve made vile, incendiary, unsupported charges about myself and an entire group of people.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Oh, really? I mentioned elsewhere the pedophile-founded Human Rights Campaign, whose very existence makes my comments hardly unsupported. They recently presented this declaration that is so despicable and disgusting if you have a heartbeat you should oppose it.

          • SFBruce

            A few facts:

            1. Terry Bean, the person you refer to, was never convicted of child sexual abuse. He was charged, but the alleged victim declined to testify. As a result, the charges were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be reinsitutited should the alleged victim changes his mind. This doesn’t necessarily mean the abuse didn’t happen, but in the eyes of the law, Bean is an innocent man.

            2. Terry Bean has had no association with HRC since 2015.

            3. I am not Terry Bean.

            4. Men who have actually been convicted of child sexual abuse include those who identify as Christian, but no one believes that means that all Christian men commit child sex abuse.

            I’m not holding my breath, but you owe me an apology for claiming I “want to boff our kids.” You made that outrageous accusation based on nothing more than having read a few of my online comments. That’s beneath contempt.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Terry Bean had sex with an underage male. Police couldn’t go further on charges due to lack of cooperation from the boy, who was given $50000 by Bean.

            Terry Bean is a pedophile. End of story.

          • SFBruce

            We just don’t know that, and there’s also no way to know for certain that he didn’t. Surely you know that the accused are afforded the presumption of innocence. And yes, Bean offered the alleged victim a settlement, although the amount I’ve read is $225,000. I don’t know whether the boy accepted it, but it’s certainly possible. I’ve already acknowledged that the case was dropped because the boy wouldn’t cooperate.

            There’s no question that it’s illegal in Oregon for an adult to have physical relations with someone under the age of 18, and the boy in question was 15 at the time. I agree with the law, but this isn’t pedophilia, which is an adult engaging in physical relations with a pre-pubescent child, not a teen-ager.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            We do know it. We know it because of the boy’s refusal to cooperate.

            And let me tell you something else: Ever hear the name Vincent Bugliosi? He was a prosecutor for the Los Angeles District Attorney. He prosecuted 106 felony jury trials, including Charles Manson et al. He lost only one.

            I give you the man’s creds because of a single statement he made regarding presumption of innocence: It only exists within a courtroom.

            And I have no problem with age of consent laws. I do, however, have a problem with your implied suggestion it should be lowered to 13.

          • SFBruce

            Now you’re just making things up. I explicitly said I agree with Oregon’s age of consent, “There’s no question that it’s illegal in Oregon for an adult to have physical relations with someone under the age of 18, and the boy in question was 15 at the time. I agree with the law, but this isn’t pedophilia…” (emphasis added.)

            I’ll save you the 30 seconds it would have taken you to look up the definition of pedophilia: Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. (from the DMS-5)

            Prepubescent children: of, relating to, being in, or occurring in the period of development immediately preceding puberty.

            I’m not the first person to say we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own facts. You seem to have trouble taking responsibility for the your own words that appear on this very page, and you seem to bend over backward in order to find insidious meaning in my comments when my meaning is completely clear.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            At this point I really don’t care what you say or think. I showed what you said to someone I call a friend, someone whose father was a homosexual pedophile who went to prison and died there.

            She said,
            “Rubbish. My father agreed, years before he went to prison for pedophilia. It is not about age of puberty, but when one’s BRAIN is reasonably developed.

            My father was also clear that the PURPOSE of early sex was to help a boy embrace his ‘natural homosexuality’ before he was old enough to be ‘ruined by a girl.'”

            Is there any wonder why I find myself skeptical of your assurance you don’t want to boff kids?

          • Eldrida Urika

            What about the incredible amount of evidence that says heterosexual males regularly rape young girls, younger than the age of consent?
            You have to look for the whole picture, not just the narrow view you are seeing these things from.
            You can find any evidence to support anything you want on the internet and you must realize that it is not all valid.
            If I search for homosexuals I get hits that I am not interested in, so I don’t search that.
            At one time if a young girl searched for an image of a donkey, there would be more images about sex with donkeys than just pictures of the animal kind of child’s pictures.
            So, I find less supporting evidence with my own search than you say you have.
            Also, the story you told about it not being about the age as much as the sex for her father? Great so now you take it for granted that all pedophiles think like that and 2. that even though gays are not likely to be pedophiles, you merged the beliefs so you could complain about both at the same time.
            The groups are all filled with the exact same people is old school.
            Now that is considered discrimination and against the law if someone complains.
            It is understood now, in case you missed it, that people don’t want to be lumped in with others just because of one thing that is common to both of them, but not all of them.
            Like thinking all white people are the same as Trump. Obviously there are those that are nothing like Trump, so grouping white people is inaccurate for most things, and so it is for other races, genders, orientation etc.
            Being Christian does not mean you can’t be aware of things, but we must use our wisdom and knowledge to increase our trust and faith in Jesus. Knowing what to expect truthfully is a benefit, but believing in a lie is the way a fool thinks.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            If you are not a homosexual why would you look at anything that is aimed at them?

            Excuse me?

            Number one, this is not about me. Number two, for you to say such a thing is disgusting and indicative of your character, or lack thereof.

            Also, the story you told about it not being about the age as much as the sex for her father? Great so now you take it for granted that all pedophiles think like that and 2. that even though gays are not likely to be pedophiles, you merged the beliefs so you could complain about both at the same time.

            I did not say that, a friend of mine did. And I do not take kindly to those who would try to question her character, as she literally lived through that crap from both her father as well as her mother and her lesbian lover.

            All that is CHRISTIAN is a lie and it’s mind control that makes them want to practice it and anyone that condones it are evil people doomed to hell.

            These words you wrote to Doug Bristow indicate you are not a Christian, just a troll, most likely the resurrection of a sock puppet created by the rightfully banned A.C.

            You are cordially invited to go straight to hell.

            And you are blocked.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            Thank you. I was right about him and in not trusting him.I’ll be blocking him too.
            Doug is a good person.I hate it when these troll treat him bad. Doug really cares for these people. He tries so hard to lead them to the truth. When his time come he will be blessed and those who were unkind to him will not be blessed.You are doing a good job too.You will be blessed as well.

          • Eldrida Urika

            It is still a fact that the way that man talked about his disgusting habits as about sex not about age,could be one of the few of them that think that way.
            It doesn’t mean it should be a base to think of all people that have one thing to identify with the other?
            That’s all I was saying. Don’t put the orange in with the apples and expect the apples to be like the orange. There is no reasonable expectation that every person who is in a category to be identical to another in the same one.
            I in no way tried to demean your story, I was explaining what it could be about. What I said were based on people’s behavior in similar cases. I regard yours as your personal opinion, just like my post was.

          • KP

            You are condoning an adult having sex with a teen-ager?

          • SFBruce

            Of course not. Why in the world would you think such a thing?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            All you need to do is prove me wrong about you not wanting to boff kids.

          • SFBruce

            In direct response to my comment, you said the LGBTQ community are pathological liars, and then followed that up with, “For example, you want to boff our kids.” But I suppose your unwillingness to acknowledge what you’ve said right on this site shows some awareness that you went too far.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I know what I said. I explained what I meant. If you have a problem with that, remember I am not the one that took a sentence out of context and then as a personal attack.

          • Eldrida Urika

            But only they are liars on a pathological scale?
            What about the Christians that lie to people every day? There are Christians who do that and tell themselves it is not a sin because it is to a sinner who won’t repent. It’s a sin no matter what it was about or towards.
            I’ll give my own understanding from those I know myself.
            They are a loving + kind people who truly want to be helpful to others and are all round good people much like how Christians should be. They do sin, but according to Jesus we all sin and cannot judge another persons sin because of our inability to see if evil is in their heart.
            Judging is about the sin, not the person and a generalized sin is really not a good way to prove a point since everyone knows that not all in a group are necessarily the same except for that one thing that puts them into a group.
            Liars come in all sorts of diverse people from rich and poor, white or colored. There is no one group who have been identified as all liars, unless it is about that fact.
            Do you not follow Jesus’ command to love everyone? And to treat everyone as we would want to be treated?
            It’s a fact that we are all sinners, so we can’t treat others badly for the sin. We need to teach them, and show them that it isn’t a hard life to avoid sin, and make others admire Christians so they want to be like them. I don’t understand how anyone can miss these things in the NT.
            Why are people worried about something individual people honestly have no control over. It would take a huge uprising of Christians to have an effect of any kind. Just complaining makes us whiny to others.
            Jesus is my savior and I trust him to protect me and provide for me, and I have no concerns about their world, as I am not of that world.
            Standing up for something that I don’t feel is what Jesus would do, is against my conscience.
            Being constantly angry about someone else’s sin is border-line obsessive if you look at the criteria for it. Stop worrying about other people’s sin and look to yourself and your own life with Christ.
            Do you not trust God to know what to do for this issue? You can’t deny our individual beliefs are not enough to make this change. God is the only one who can do something to affect that many people. No man alive has the ability to do that. Only God. So trust him to do what is necessary or open your eyes to what the times are saying. But don’t spend time worrying about something you can’t change. Work around your own area to reach out to people. All else is just like a rocking chair, you can rock for hours, but you won’t get anywhere.
            Prioritize your dedicated services to the Lord. He wants no one to miss the chance to be saved. It’s important to him. Getting upset with the sinners does nothing to bring in more believers, so forget about it unless you have things happen that you can contribute something to nearby.
            Relax and trust God and have the Peace and Joy and Hope that he has promised for each of us. Getting upset about them hurts you more than it has any affect on them in any big way. Jesus doesn’t want us to be stressed out about the ways of their world, but only be followers and a peculiar people. Give yourself a break and think about what I have said. Unless you can tell me about that big uprising of Christians that is planned as I’d love to go.

        • Eldrida Urika

          Can you give us the links to the stories you say were in the media please?

    • james blue

      Most child abuse comes from heterosexuals, all homosexuals have come from heterosexual parents.

    • Sir Osis

      The stories DO get told. Often they are lies.

    • Eldrida Urika

      I think that is hog wash. Maybe the media does too, or they realize it isn’t a big enough story because it doesn’t happen very often.
      Maybe the person mentioned is very angry with the person who raised them about something totally unconnected to their lifestyle and that is the anger heard – and maybe someone encouraged them to think of them as their gay parents as bad people. I know many that have done exactly that when it comes to gay people to make them out to be far worse than they are so other people will carry the lie on until everyone will feel the same way as they feel.
      It’s how Blacks became known as stupid and lazy. (hint: they are not either of those)

      Either that or you know one person who fits that story.
      Please don’t make generalizations, That’s why other races are getting angry with whites. Whites are not all alike any more than any other race, and visa versa.

      Jesus would not agree with denying equal rights. It was told in the O.T. that God has no respect for persons, but Jesus also said we are to be helpful and caring to people in need of it, and to behave in a way that is Christ-like to represent the Lord Jesus as his ambassadors.
      Generalizations limit the truth to a misinformed mess. It also tries to punish a whole group of people for the sins of one or a few in comparison to how many there are altogether. I was taught that we can judge a sin, but not punish a sinner. Teach, not condemn because Christian humans can’t see into their hearts or know what will happen in their futures that may open their eyes. If Christians act badly to others, others will not think much of a God that wants his people to act like those ones who hurt others by being a bully to non believers or by anything that does not show the Fruits of the Spirits – which these kinds of behavior show as a non-believer. It is not considered good behavior to be rude or hateful about any persons, and if you are rude about the sin, it will not give Jesus the glory in any way.

      I have one belief about Jesus and others have a different one. So not all Christians are alike.
      Not all gays or lesbians abuse the children that they take care of. Not all blacks abuse the children they take care of, nor do all Christians abuse all children in their care, but they are all groups (and more I did not mention) that do have some people who do.
      The key word is SOME.
      Other people know people who were not abused in the same situations.
      Some people do not even know it is a reality in this world.

      So, you may know a case, but it is too rare of a situation and the stats of how many cases are NOT homosexuals for any comparison to be legitimate.
      You can’t put a label on all people of one group because people are all different.
      Someone can put the label of religious on us, but if they put a label that said Evil Saints, we would object to it, and we should, but our right to defend ourselves from hatred should be the same in any situation for anyone.

      It is limited to that specific event and to those people. People have empathy with the news, but there are many people who don’t look at an event like a specific person or persons represents every one who is like they are. Because I’m not like those “other” women, so why do I have to be grouped as if I am just like those women? Why are all pit bulls banned in some places, but not every one has a history of attacking anyone, but are lovely family dogs who are very good with children.

      You see, there are good and bad people no matter where you look. It is no different for others who are different than we are, there are good and bad people who should be labeled for that, not for the way they live their lives. It’s no one’s business if someone is gay, unless they choose to tell you.

  • Steve Trent

    Well, you know, the power brokers of our decadent culture want to make sure that the new generation is indoctrinated to accept wickedness as normal.

    Isaiah 5:20-21 (NIV)

    Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.
    Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight.

    When you throw out the word of God, there is no real standard to determine what is right and wrong. It then becomes whatever culture decides it is and even that changes dramatically over time.

  • Steve Trent

    Of course, the secularists must indoctrinate the next generation into understanding civil rights in a godless vacuum. Then morality becomes whatever the culture decides it ought to be and they can change it as they go along.

    Isaiah 5:20-21(NIV)

    Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.
    Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight.

  • InTheChurch

    It’s easy to start your own group home, foster home, foster care agency and it can all be for homosexual children and foster parents. Go out and start one. A christian base agency and an open agency can work to help the children.

    • Steve Trent

      But the civil authorities would not let you teach them from the Bible or “indoctrinate” them with your Christian beliefs. And what do you mean by “homosexual” children? Are you implying they are born that way?

      • Sir Osis

        Are you implying they aren’t?
        It happens either in the womb or in early life.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          Then explain the YouTube channel “Queer Kids Stuff.”

          Of course they aren’t born that way. If that were true, there’d be no need to teach homosexuality to little kids.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No one DOES teach it to little kids. At least, not “how to be homosexual” because that’s impossible. When it’s spoken of to little kids, it’s more along the lines of “some people are homosexual and no they can’t help it and yes I know you’re religious but can you please not beat them up and kill them”.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            No one DOES teach it to little kids.

            The aforementioned YouTube channel all by itself makes you a liar. Which is really no surprise, as homosexuals have been shown to be even less truthful than politicians.

          • Ron Obvious

            No it doesn’t. I watched it. They don’t teach children to be homosexuals. And it’s ridiculous to think anyone WOULD teach that, since that’s not how it works. I think you owe everyone an apology, Jerome.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Yeah, I watched it too, no, they’re not teaching children how to be homosexuals, a pretty ridiculous idea to begin with since it’s impossible.

          • Sir Osis

            If you’re looking to YouTube for serious facts about anything, I’d say you’re deluded. Sounds like you are anyway though.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You can’t explain it then. Big. Shock.

          • Sir Osis

            There are murderers and white supremacists making videos on YouTube. Explain those. And then get lost, loser.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            How is this in any way relevant to this conversation?

            FAIL.

          • Sir Osis

            The point is, don’t reference YouTube videos for any reason because they could be made by absolutely anybody at all and their credibility is always going to be zero.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            The point is, you would rather dismiss things you can’t explain then actually admit you are wrong. Too bad for you. These things will be mentioned and discussed, no matter how uncomfortable the truth makes you feel.

          • Sir Osis

            Great, so you are also taking white supremacist videos on YouTube seriously. (Why doesn’t this surprise me?)

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Red herring. You going to stay here because you have no place to go?

          • Sir Osis

            YouTube videos have zero credibility and are the garbage bin of the internet. Of course that’s why you hold them in such high esteem.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            If you would rather dodge and attempt to change the subject this conversation is over. You have nothing.

          • Sir Osis

            I’m not going to defend something as ridiculous and lame as a YouTube video made by bigots. Suck on that for a while Matthew.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Flagged for vulgarity.

          • Sir Osis

            Well, you can just take a long, hard, suck on my arse, Matthew. As if getting banned was anything I was seriously worried about. I will always come back to ridicule your sick garbage.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Flagged for vulgarity.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Moderators, this guy used to be Jason Todd. He’s consistently broken your rule about discourteous behavior in this thread alone. Can you please remove him. Thanks.

          • Ron Obvious

            Flagged for stupidity.

          • Eldrida Urika

            There are far more YouTube videos and Channels about religion.
            Those are to teach Christianity to people who won’t born Christian.

            Why are you looking for that kind of thing anyway. We are not supposed to discuss the evil sins in any way with each other according to Jesus.
            If you are not a homosexual why would you look at anything that is aimed at them?
            I’d like to also point out that there are educational videos and channels too and they work just as any teaching video does.

            But from the sounds of it, it is not a teaching channel. It sounds more like some typical children themes that involve homosexuals. Not the act, just things like children always watch, but aimed at someone who feels differently than the other children they know.
            It would be like a downs-syndrome channel that makes those children with Downs Syndrome feel more like they are like the other children.
            They are born that way but often it is necessary to help them with the way they feel different.
            No one likes to be different from a group that we like or want to be like. Not even adults.

      • InTheChurch

        No, I am not implying that. I’m referring to a home ran by homosexuals for teenagers that are homosexuals. The social worker has options to place a minor. As a former SW and christian, I would place a gay young man in a home with gay parents. if that child requests it, the parents are ok with it, home is certified and the judge is ok with it. I would. We have Indian approved homes already. We have all female and all male homes. We have homes that are specialized. Why not a specialized home for gays?
        Again, I am as christian as it comes. I don’t agree with promoting sin. Homosexuality is a sin. But, I have to look out for the safety and well being of the minor. If a child will be safe and gets good grades in school while living in this home, I will place that child in that home.
        Also, after you work a case where a pastor killed a foster child, you see your work in a different light. You will disagree with me and many will, and I can live with that, but don’t question my walk with Christ.

        • Steve Trent

          Thanks for the elaboration, brother. Now your original post makes more sense. Originally, it wasn’t clear to me what was the point you were trying to make.

        • Eldrida Urika

          A very sensible way to believe what is best for who are involved directly. It’s hard for us when a person in authority, especially in the Christian church, breaks the law and hurts/kills anyone. It is one more way to show the bad side of a single Christian, and it will have a longer affect to the people who hear about it if they apply it to all of us.

          I totally agree, and to be honest, I think we should leave them to their destiny and leave them alone. God will take care of it and Jesus told us that these things must happen.

          I just heard from my husband that our city school board is filled with Muslims and they have introduced an Islam month that will basically teach all about Islam. They refuse to do a Christian month as our equal rights says we should have. Apparently there are all sorts of other months but even though the Christian religion is known to fewer people than it was before in history, they won’t allow anyone to learn about it. Not the Sikhs, Not the muslims the blacks or the Jewish who should at least have the knowledge of the other one Abrahamic religion if they do the others.

          Either way you can see where this is going and there are many things that are in Jesus’ descriptions of the end. Man with man is just one of them that he mentioned. Earthquakes in places they do not normally have them, mudslides, and other natural disasters but in places they did not happen before, and are worse for the places they have happened before.
          Everything in the News is starting to match the descriptions we are told to accept and look to Jesus for our protection.
          The descriptions are not only in the speeches that Jesus gave, but also in the later books, as it is very important for us to be aware of the times coming and they tell us what to do during these times as well.
          I only repeat what the bible is speaking of. If anyone wants the scriptures, I think they would be easy to search for with google.

        • Eldrida Urika

          I am sorry that you had to go through that case. God bless you for caring when many would not.

  • Jerome Horwitz

    In light of recent events, I feel the need to make my position crystal clear on something.

    At pride events, there have been incidents that have been photographed, such as naked men walking down public streets in broad daylight in full view of women and children, and the infamous photograph of the man shoving his genitals into the face of a disgusted young boy.

    Now, in most cases, people would voice anger and abhorrence, and those who did it would be arrested and charged as sex offenders.

    Unless those involved are homosexuals. Then the problem is you, as your opposition is just bigotry and homophobia (as Sam Sotiropoulos discovered).

    Within these comments, two people actually doubled down and stated outright homosexuals are not sex offenders.

    No. I am serious.

    These two people are in effect saying homosexuals who sexually abuse children are not actually doing anything wrong. And if they really believe this, you have to wonder if they are not putting such beliefs into practice, if you know what I mean.

    Do such people deserve a voice on a Christian website? Of course not. Will the mod(s) act accordingly? Time will tell.

    • ThroatwobblerMangrove

      No one is saying anything even close to what you claim they are…your dishonesty is what’s crystal clear here.

      Let’s take a look at the example you are using. Naked men in pride parades throwing their genitalia in people’s faces. Is that acceptable? Of course not. But what you are doing is making it look like this is behavior displayed by ALL homosexuals, and endorsed by ALL homosexuals. You don’t for a minute even consider that a LARGE percentage of homosexuals wouldn’t be caught dead at a pride parade.

      Why don’t you save your wrath for the people who do disgusting things like that and try REALLY HARD not to pigeonhole all homosexuals the way you are?

      Here’s a bit of reality you need to digest. HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT SEX OFFENDERS. Look at what a ridiculous generalization that is. Would you let it go by if someone posted CHRISTIANS ARE SEX OFFENDERS? A few are, but the vast majority are NOT. Just like homosexuals.

      You think about that. And ask yourself why you have to be so rude to people here.

      • Eldrida Urika

        He’s dishonest? and rude as well? Well then he can’t be a Christian, as we are taught not to be like that in any circumstance.
        So if that is the case, you don’t have to feel obligated to think he knows the Truth which is the Bible. You can skip past their posts with just a rebuke to their disobeying Jesus about our behavior.
        If you want to know what Jesus told us to have as Fruits of the Spirit, it is in Galatians 5;22-23
        I’ll be happy to help if you aren’t sure of any of the words; they are old fashioned and could create a misunderstanding if you don’t know them correctly.
        Blessings!

    • Eldrida Urika

      Those parades are for people who support that kind of behavior. Other People should stay away from them and those kind of things won’t be able to bother anything.

      People have had to turn the page to skip reading an advertising, or a wait for a commercial to end that we have no interest in or find offensive, I don’t understand the problem with ignoring other people who don’t agree with them.

      All we do is let them know the truth about Salvation by repentance, and then it is up to them to choose. So they chose not to follow Jesus and we are supposed to leave them to their choices after we have offered salvation as a choice not just the knowledge of sin, but the benefits of believing in Jesus.

      If they have the understanding then they should be left alone to hopefully change their minds later before their deaths. But if they do not change from what they are told, it will be up to the next Christian to try to reach them next.

      Jesus told us not to be concerned with them because we have to be concerned about the believers most. We need to be each others back ups and help each other with our faith, our thoughts, and our belief and trust in Jesus. Especially as the end times approach.

      If you don’t like how something about a sinner looks like, don’t look.
      Good looking woman (to you), look, – oh except that is a sin to look at her for her looks.
      Ugly woman (to you) don’t look. It’s much better than complaining as it is in scriptures that we were not supposed to complain if we trust Jesus to sustain us, and if you complain, you are questioning his provision. I’m sure you can find the scripture if you try to.

  • Joe Martinez

    The ACLU people are hypocrites. A baby can’t make a decision so the ACLU should be there to b the voice for the baby. These gay people are adults and should their lifestyle. The courts should be their voice to protect them from a lifestyle they may not want.

    • Freezefred45

      Like a heterosexual lifestyle they may not want?