Pennsylvania Court Rules Man May Annul Father-Son Adoption of Male Partner So Two Can ‘Marry’

PITTSBURGH, Pa. — A Pennsylvania court has ruled that an elderly man may legally dissolve the father-son adoption arrangement with his male partner so the two can become “married.”

A three-judge panel with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued its opinion on Wednesday, advising that “under the circumstances of this case, Pennsylvania law permits an unopposed annulment or revocation of an adult adoption.”

As previously reported, Nino Esposito, 80, had been with his partner Roland Bosee, 69, for 40 years when the two decided that Esposito would adopt Bosee as his son so that they could lower their inheritance tax and also be considered “family” under the law. Same-sex nuptials were then illegal in Pennsylvania.

“[The adoption] gave us the most legitimate thing available to us,” Bosee told reporters.

They were granted their request in court and consequently lived under the law as father and son, but after a judge struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex “marriage” ban in 2014, the two decided to annul the adoption and instead “wed” each other.

But after filing paperwork to do so, Esposito and Bosee were rejected since fathers are not allowed to “marry” their adopted sons.

Judge Lawrence O’Toole of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, who is considered to be an advocate for homosexual causes, told the men last November that although he was “sympathetic” to their situation, he could not grant the request “because they are legally father and son.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The men then appealed the ruled to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which ruled in their favor last week.

“Although the Adoption Act does not expressly provide for the annulment of the adult adoption, case law does allow it in certain scenarios; and this case presents wholly new and unique circumstances,” President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman, wrote on behalf of the court.

“Pennsylvania law regarding same sex marriage [has] changed; same-sex couples in this Commonwealth may now exercise their fundamental right to marry. Therefore, where a same-sex couple, who previously obtained an adult adoption, now seeks to annul or revoke the adoption in order to marry, the Orphans’ court has the authority to annul or revoke the adult adoption,” she stated.

The men state that they are “relieved” at the news, as they thought their situation might be a “lost cause.”

“Marriage and family were undefiled when God gave them as a gift to mankind before sin entered the world,” notes James Beaubelle in his article “The Sacredness of Marriage.” “In Genesis 2:18, God enacted the first social foundation for mankind: ‘And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper [suitable for] him.'”

“Then, in verse 24, God sanctifies Adam’s relationship with Eve by declaring that the two would be joined together as one flesh, that a man and his wife should leave mother and father, cling to each other, and become their own family unit. In other words, marriage was dignified and defined by God as a joining of one man and one woman,” he outlines.

“Because marriage is a creation of God, it possesses a sacredness that no man-devised institution can ever have. This world is trying to exchange the sanctity of marriage for its complete opposite, the profane, but this secular approach will never produce a healthy society,” Baubelle 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
  • Amos Moses

    using law to cover sin ….. never works ……… fools no one …… except the foolish …..

    • Kyler Phoenix

      Oh Sand I, you are so uneducated.

      • Amos Moses

        gibberish ………

        • Kyler Phoenix

          Is it Sandi Talbot?

          • Amos Moses

            ¯_(ツ)_/¯ ………..

  • Rachelthemillenial

    Sickening.

    • Kyler Phoenix

      Bigotry and ignorance always are.

      • Amos Moses

        so you agree that you are bigoted and ignorant of christians …. thanx …..

        • Kyler Phoenix

          No. I clearly have a better education then you.

  • Roy Hobs

    All the more reason for Believers to get back to the Word and recognize true Biblical marriage: .Sexual intercourse is the marriage of two flesh into one. Often a child is the result of such a ‘union’ of flesh and blood. Only a man and a woman can accomplish such an act. Marriage was never meant to be a ‘paper’ marriage. Get marriage out of the courts; out of “law”. Get it out of churches for goodness sakes. areyoumarried is a word press blog.

  • Michael C

    I’m very glad that this was a long and difficult process for them. It should be. Annulling an adoption should be a hard thing to do.

    That being said, I couldn’t be happier for this elderly couple who have been together for over forty years. I can understand why they chose to go forward with the adoption as an elderly couple. It must have been frightening to enter old age with no legal rights binding them together. They chose adoption (as an elderly couple) so they would at least have next-of-kin rights. The legal rights associated with marriage are something that straight people have taken for granted. The lack of empathy is shocking to me.

    • Jenny Ondioline

      Yes. The adoption, odd as it might have seemed at the time, was the only way to give them next of kin rights. Marriage would have made more sense had it been available to them at the time but it wasn’t.

      • Amos Moses

        except they will never be married ….. they are two men ………

        • Roy Hobs

          What you say Amos?!!! You mean two men can’t be “one flesh”? SARCASM

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Dropout.

          • Roy Hobs

            Nice Avatar. At least you don’t hide it. Will make it easier for the Redeemer to pluck you out.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            More deflection from a cretin.

          • Roy Hobs

            What are you talking about! I’m not deflecting from anything. My thoughts are right out in the open. I don’t hide it. I tell it like it is. As if “Dropout” is an educated, qualified answer/response. Get out of town you insect. Huffington Post loves you. So does San Francisco.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Yes you are. Your IQ? Education? Accomplishments?

          • Roy Hobs

            Huh?

          • Kyler Phoenix

            More deflection from questions that should be easy to answer.

          • Roy Hobs

            Ok…and what questions have I ignored pertaining to this article?

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Are you daft? Your education etc cetera?

          • Roy Hobs

            As if I have a responsibility to answer ‘your’ questions about my personal life.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Why is your in quotations. You don’t answer because you are ashamed. That should tell you something. It won’t of course.

          • Roy Hobs

            Kyler the comedian. Thanks for the laugh.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            So no answer once again?

          • Amos Moses

            oh poor kyler ….. he has become the invisible commenter …….

          • Roy Hobs

            It is an amazing phenomena. These low life’s come out of nowhere to “disrupt” and “obfuscate”. It boggles my mind. They must get paid; or they are really bored. Or…this is just the Spirit of Anti-Christ at work. Do you still read ReligionNews? I gave up. The anti-Christ commenters are the only readers it seems! That “Spuddie” guy is a Pro..Not to mention the Staff are a disgrace to Truth and justice.

          • Amos Moses

            link to your CV first …….

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Why? Because you are a coward?

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Nice try. They pertain to your posts and knowledge.

          • Sister Boogie

            He’s got the mental level of a little child, if you disagree with him, he says you’re stupid. Ignore him.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            I ask cogent question and expose cowardly idiots. Why do you hide? Ashamed?

          • Roy Hobs

            Nice job Sister Boogie! Whatever you said made that disgusting example of a human leave and delete his comments! Victory.

        • Kyler Phoenix

          They are married.

          • Amos Moses

            nope ……….

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Yep

        • Jenny Ondioline

          The law considers them married. Nothing else, not your opinion nor the religious opinion of anyone else, counts for anything.

          • Roy Hobs

            Exactly…..the reason Christians should abandon Civil law and get back to Biblical law. Leave the system! Get marriage out of the courts and out of the 501 C churches. Let ‘them’ have it. Just like pouring hot burning coals on their head. Let them dig deeper into their sin and depravity.

          • Roy Hobs

            We need to take a lesson from the Amish. “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord.”
            “Friendship with the world is enmity towards the Creator”

          • jscotttheory

            Good riddance

          • Roy Hobs

            “Good riddance”
            Where am I going?

          • Roy Hobs

            areyoumarried.wordpress

          • jscotttheory

            If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, I hear Iran is beautiful this time of year.

          • Roy Hobs

            Reading comprehension is critical.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            You can. Just marry in a “holy” ceremony and leave the certificate out of it.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you seriously want to see Biblical law back I think you would have the extreme minority opinion. We don’t see that kind of thinking working out too well in places like Iran.

          • Roy Hobs

            The Amish seem to be doing just fine.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That’s because they aren’t forcing the rest of us to live as they do.

          • Roy Hobs

            Just out of curiosity……..why do you comment on a Christian Site? I would find no interest spending time talking to people at the Huffington Post….as an example.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Because there are many Christians out there, in fact the majority in my experience, who would disagree with the ones who comment here.

          • Roy Hobs

            Confusing. What do you mean? You clearly don’t identify yourself as being a Christian; so why do you care, or why do you come to a Christian site and converse with Christians? What is your motivation.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The conversation is still interesting to me even if I don’t always agree.

          • Roy Hobs

            Strange. For me personally….I have zero interest in spending my time talking to Huffington Post readers. But I appreciate your honesty.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t read the Huffington Post.

          • Roy Hobs

            You will find like minded people there.

          • Amos Moses

            including yours …. and the laws opinion …. and you are on a christian forum … and if you do not want to hear what christians have to say ….. then there is a solution for that …… do not comment ………….. not here anyways ……… otherwise your comments are open to comment whether you like them or not ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            My opinion doesn’t matter. Neither does yours. The law’s is all that does, and the law considers them married. You can say they’re not all you like, but your opinion isn’t the thing that denies them their marriage benefits.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. if you want to tell people their opinion does not matter ……. then neither does yours ……… you do not get it just one way, your way ….. they have no benefits of marriage as they are not married ….. they are homomarried and that is not the samething ………. again ….. if you do not like christians opinion ….. the solution is simple ….. comment elsewhere …….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You’re right, my opinion doesn’t matter either. They’re married in the eyes of the law. Meaning that they will get all the benefits of being married because the law will provide them. Your opinion isn’t being suppressed, state it all you like, but it will do you no good.

          • Amos Moses

            and the law is wrong …..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You are free to appeal it.

          • Amos Moses

            i am free to appall it ……… and if it does not follow Gods law …. then it is not law ….. and never will be ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Well, you can say you know God’s opinion on the matter and so can I, but in the absence of God being here, the law wins. It’s really just your opinion, Amos. It has no power or weight.

          • Sister Boogie

            You atheists have no life at all other than hating Christians. You’re pitiful little things, so sad and bored. You should get a hobby other than hating. When you hate, the only person harmed is you.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t hate anyone, Sister Boogie. I am saying two people in love should be allowed to be married. Where is the hate in that?

          • Amos Moses

            you hate christians …. you are a christophobe ………. so a lie there ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t hate Christians, but I hate willful ignorance which does not need to be a component of Christianity (however much people like yourself wish it to be).

          • Amos Moses

            liar …….. you are only here to cause division ……….. and that is HATE for christians and christianity ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No. I am in constant contact with Christians and like the ones I deal with very much. I have no hate, only hate for bigotry and intolerance.

          • Amos Moses

            ones who believe your lies ….. questionable that they are christians to begin with ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you think I’m lying, call me on them. You know I can back up my words.

          • Amos Moses

            ummmm …. pay attention ……… you are being CALLED …………. LIAR …..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Give an example, otherwise you have nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            every syllable you utter is a lie ….. it takes to long to reiterate them ….. read every post you have ever made here ………. it is the exhaustive list ………….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’ll just let that comment sit there. One of us is being calm and reasonable and trying to establish an understanding and other one’s shrieking “liar” and saying nothing else. I think you know which one you are.

          • Amos Moses

            no …. you have clearly stated ………. “After that I’m not interested in any arguments.” …. you are HERE TO CAUSE DIVISION …… you are marked as a liar ….. miss liar ….. and this previous statement is ANOTHER example of YOUR lies ………….. miss liar ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What I actually said was “Two people of the same gender, if homosexual, can feel the same depth of feeling towards one another as a straight couple. After that I’m not interested in any arguments.”

            Which means that if you’re going to completely gloss over the important point being made, which is that two people of the same sex can feel romantic love towards one another, then I’m not interested in talking to you. Because you’re not interested in facts.

          • Amos Moses

            again …. you are not here for DISCUSSION …. you are here to DIVIDE ….. and you are here to SPREAD LIES ………. miss liar ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Who am I dividing, exactly?
            How have I lied?
            Going to talk reasonably, or continue to screech at me like a madman?

          • Amos Moses

            it makes no difference if you did or not ….. your intention is to cause division by being a LIAR …. miss liar ……… your actions speak louder than your words ……….. and i have already stated ….. every syllable you utter here is a lie in one way or another ……………

          • Amos Moses

            you back up your lies with lies ….. what would be the point ……… you are a liar ………..

          • jscotttheory

            I’m with Jenny, I don’t hate anybody, but I will react negatively when told I need to abide by some arbitrary dogma and called names if I reject the dogma.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. scripture says what Gods says …. and it is not an opinion ….. it is His creation ….. and it follows His laws and His consequences ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Scripture has nothing to do with the marriage benefits these men will receive under the law. Like I said, the law is the only thing that matters.

          • Amos Moses

            the benefits they will never have are reserved to true marriage ….. it has not one thing to do with transfer of property or inheritance or any benefit of this world and life …… there is benefit outside of what God has ordained …………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            We are discussing earth. The law has deemed it that gay couples are legitimate and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. From that standpoint, you lose. You can talk about what happens after we all die all you like, it’s speculation and doesn’t matter.

          • Amos Moses

            no … you are discussing earth and earthly things …. again ….. THIS IS A CHRISTIAN FORUM ……. and if you are offended by christian ideals ….. there are other places for your ideas and comments …. and from that standpoint ….. YOU LOSE ………….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yes Amos, it is a Christian forum, and you’re not speaking like a Christian, you’re speaking like a Muslim trying to enforce Sharia law. Why is that?

          • Amos Moses

            you are not a christian ……….. and all you are here to do is add invective ………… you have absolutely no christian motives here ….. and you want the people you claim to protect and defend to remain enslaved ….. how is it you think you are deserving of anything but ridicule …… it is YOUR sharia of secularism that holds them captive ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I have no “sharia of secularism”. It’s just that your rules don’t apply outside of the walls of your church when it comes to homosexual marriage and you aren’t seeing that for some reason. Maybe the reason people haven’t taken the same belief system as the one you have is that they disagree with you about how you treat homosexuals. But human rights are human rights and they don’t get trumped by one narrow Christian viewpoint.

          • Amos Moses

            “It’s just that your rules don’t apply outside of the walls of your church when it comes to homosexual marriage and”

            right there ….. Sharia of secularism ………… and it has not one thing to do with christianity ….. you have not one problem forcing your garbage on others ……. has nothing to do with human rights …….. it has to do with rebellion and your desire to debase society …………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Secularism is the absence of religion. What you’re really saying is that you demand a Christian theocracy. Isn’t that right? Why can’t you just admit that?

          • Amos Moses

            you GOT IT ……… THAT is what you promote ……….. DOGMATIC SHARIA of SECULARISM ……………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is no such thing. Your religion does not rule the world.

          • Amos Moses

            your “religion” is attempting to do just that ….. by spreading lies …. miss liar ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Correction, I am not YOUR BRAND of Christian and I have never known Christianity to be about the kind of hatred and oppression that is your hallmark.

          • Amos Moses

            no ……….. you are no christian AT ALL ………………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Most Christians I know would take no issue with my statements, so your statement is irrelevant.

          • Amos Moses

            then NOT christians ……….. big whoop ….. believing a lie only makes you a liar ……. not a christian ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No True Scotsman fallacy. People don’t cease to be Christians just because you don’t like them.

          • Amos Moses

            another bovine scatological lie …………. NTS has nothing to do with christianity ….. do you go to McDonalds and try to buy a Whopper ………. NO ….. cause there is no true Whopper? ….. NOOOOO …… because Burger King gets to say what is a Whopper and WHAT IS NOT …… and christians get to say WHO IS CHRISTIAN AND WHO IS NOT …………. just more of your LIES …. miss liar …. and it is listed here and pointed out …………….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            NTS has nothing to do with Christianity, correct. But it’s used to show a logical fallacy which you are guilty of. If Christian X does something that Christian Y doesn’t do, Christian Y says Christian X isn’t a true Christian. And you can substitute any word you like for the word “Christian” in this example, but for you, that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

          • Amos Moses

            misapplication of NTS here is makes it a fallacy …….. you are trying to misapply it as if it has any validity in this conversation ……… it does not …… there is no need to “substitute” anything …. the subject IS christianity …. and scripture CLEARLY says to mark those who seek to CAUSE DIVISION …. and that is YOU ….. miss liar ……… Christ came not to unite …… BUT TO DIVIDE ……… especially such as you …………

            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.
            16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
            16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No True Scotsman absolutely applies to what you are doing, and I will explain why.

            As you know, there are thousands and thousands of Christian denominations. Let’s take any issue you want, infant baptism for example. Christians divide pretty much down the middle for those who do it and those who don’t, and both have Biblical justification for doing so. THAT MEANS NEITHER OF THEM IS WRONG. If you DEEM one of them to be wrong, it’s merely your own opinion. They are STILL CHRISTIANS. But you take the issues you don’t like, and look at the Christians who are OK with them, and tell them they’re not really Christians. THAT is the No True Scotsman fallacy to a T. And you are VERY guilty of it.

          • Amos Moses

            NTS has no validity to christianity ….. christians are granted full authority to decide who is a christian and who is not ….. your foolish and lying explanation to the contrary …. “If you DEEM one of them to be wrong, it’s merely your own opinion. They are STILL CHRISTIANS.” …. nope …. WRONG ……….. scripture is the final authority ….. not me … not you …… miss liar …………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Does that mean that other Christians are also allowed to state that YOU are not a Christian? See how it works in both directions? Don’t like it much when someone tells you you’re not a Christian, do you? Well then, why is it OK for YOU to do it to other Christians?
            No True Scotsman. In a nutshell. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to allow others to be Christians too.

          • Amos Moses

            “Does that mean that other Christians are also allowed to state that YOU are not a Christian?”

            YUPPP …………. so what ……….

          • jscotttheory

            I think I am fortunate, the Jesus I’ve read about is not nearly as judgmental and vitriolic as Mr. Amos

          • Amos Moses

            i hate LIES and LIARS ………….. so guilty as charged ………… miss liar ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you’re just going to call names and not resolve differences, there’s no point in speaking to you. Is this really the behavior you want to show people as a Christian?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Screaming “liar” at me over and over accomplishes nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. you are a liar and will be called out as such …………. miss liar ………

          • Kyler Phoenix

            They have the exact same benefits.

        • jscotttheory

          According to the 14th amendment and The Supreme Court (Obergefell v Hodges), they still deserve civil rights.

          • Amos Moses

            sure ….. just not redefining the language to make it say what they want it to say ….. what homosexuals do “legally” is not a marriage ….. and never will be ………

          • jscotttheory

            Just don’t call it a marriage. Are we simply quibbling over semantics? The term “marriage” is merely a social construct. Would “civil unions” possessing the requisite civil rights and responsibilities satisfy the religious folks?

          • Amos Moses

            nope … it is not a “social construct” ….. homomarriage is ….. Why can’t I marry the robot I love? ….. because it aint one …….. they do not want marriage ….. they were fully able to marry …… not one of them was ever prevented from a marriage ….. no … they wanted to flaunt their disrespect for society and good order ……. has not one thing to do with “civil rights” …. that was just the excuse ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is a simple solution for you to find out if two homosexuals can fall in love the same way two heterosexuals can. Ask one.

          • Amos Moses

            there is a simple way to tell ….. two men and two women can have a love for each other …… but if they seek marriage … then it is with the opposite sex ….. and two of the same sex is not a marriage …… and “love” has not one thing to do with it ….. homomarriage is not marriage ……….. no more than a human can marry a dog, or a robot or a marital aid because they “love” it …..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Actually that is false. Two people of the same gender, if homosexual, can feel the same depth of feeling towards one another as a straight couple. After that I’m not interested in any arguments. Let them get married. You get only one lifetime to be happy in.

          • Amos Moses

            “Two people of the same gender, if homosexual, can feel the same depth of feeling towards one another as a straight couple. ”

            and i said that …. it has not one thing to do with marriage …..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Marriage is what people do when they fall in love, sir.

          • Max

            In that case, no gays should marry.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So you don’t think gay people actually fall in love with people of the same sex?

          • Amos Moses

            nope ….. one has nothing to do with the other …. and what they are in “love” with is their own sin ……… and rebellion ….. and their desire to flaunt their rebellion …………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t know a single person who got married because they were not in love. And that includes many, many Christians. I think you need a reality check.

          • Amos Moses

            so where in law is the requirement for “love” to be part of being married …. and how is it proved ……….. i seem to have missed that part of reality that you claim ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            For “requirements” all you need by law is to sign a piece of paper in the office of the J of P. You don’t even need a church. But I think it’s safe to say that people marry because they love each other.

          • Amos Moses

            “After that I’m not interested in any arguments.”

            then there is no need for your presence here ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Then you may remove yourself.

          • Max

            Gays and lesbians don’t rule the world yet, so get over yourself. We don’t take orders from your kind.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            They aren’t attempting to rule the world. I would say you’re the one doing that.

          • Max

            You come to a Christian blog and tell the Christians on it to shut up.

            Get over yourselves, you don’t scare us.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Actually I haven’t done that, but I have questioned some of the stranger things I’ve read here which don’t come across particularly “Christian”.

          • Max

            You don’t decide who is Christian. Homosexuals are immoral people, you have no business judging decent people.

          • Amos Moses

            bye …. this is a CHRISTIAN forum ……….. and you are the ODD woman out …. or man …. or whatever you are ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Perhaps you should start speaking like a Christian then.

          • Amos Moses

            if you were a christian ….. i would give you the benefit of the doubt …… you are just here to divide ….. and are marked as such and deserve what you get here …………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, I am here to point out that what you’re saying is about as opposite to what Jesus would say as it’s possible to be. He was about love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance. You are not.

          • Amos Moses

            no … you are here to divide and promote depravity …………….. and that IS the OPPOSITE of what Christ was here to do ………….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What you call depravity other people, including Christians, call love. Strange, eh?

          • Amos Moses

            and what they call it IS A LIE ………..

          • Max

            Not a group of people renowned for their honesty or integrity.

            People who work in Emergency Rooms know what gay and lesbian couples are like. It’s been well established that they have higher rates of domestic violence, along with higher rates of drug addiction and alcoholism. Naturally they have to lie a lot in order to gull the public into believing they’re decent and respectable.

            Oh, plus that little matter of the “couples” who adopt children and allow their friends to use the kid for sex.

            Christians read the news. We’re not as ignorant as you assume.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Every single homosexual is lying then? That’s a lot of people taking part in an elaborate hoax who don’t actually love each other just for the sake of fooling everyone else.

            As for your stats, I’d like to see them from a reliable source.

          • Max

            The site won’t allow us to post links.

            If you know how to Google, here’s some of the many gay couples who prey on their own adopted children. These monsters are the lowest form of humanity:

            George Harasz Douglas Wirth adopted sons

            Peter Truong Mark Newton adopted son

            Ian Wathey Craig Faunch abuse children

            Carl Herold Charles Dunnavant son sex

            Cesar Gonzales-Mugaburu foster boys

            David Cannon John Scarfe son sex

            Christian Jessica Deanda Eraca Dawn Craig torture

            Rachel Stevens Kayla Jones son abuse

            Pauline Moreno Debra Lobel son

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Why are you posting pedophiles? The subject is homosexuality.

          • Max

            These are GAY couples who have had sex with their adopted children.

            Go ahead, deny it all you want. The news is out, you can’t hush it up.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yeah, and? There are straight couples who do this too, and in way larger proportions. The vast majority of gay people, just as with straight people, don’t touch children. You’re being dishonest.

          • Max

            Go ahead, deny it.

            You can’t stop the news from getting out. Gay couples are adopting kids and using them for sex. It’s true whether you admit it or not.

            Your “community” essentially consists of plague-spreaders and pedophiles. The rainbow flag symbolizes people bound together by a contempt for life and the innocence of children.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You’re looking at a few freak cases and blaming them in the whole of homosexuality. You’re being completely dishonest. I have no idea if those stories you posted happened or not but almost all homosexuals are not pedophiles. No one is out to abuse children, that is not what homosexuals want.

          • Michael C

            How long would the list of cases of straight couples be?

          • Max

            Sure, dodge and weave. Typical.

            You think that makes it OK for you to molest kids?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No one is dodging and weaving. It’s a ridiculous comparison you are trying to make. Homosexuality and pedophilia are different subjects entirely. Any list you post gets a much longer list right back at you.

          • Max

            Go ahead and post one then. Lots of other names I can add to mine.

            I can promise you, mine is longer than yours.

          • Amos Moses

            “Every single homosexual is lying then? That’s a lot of people taking part in an elaborate hoax who don’t actually love each other just for the sake of fooling everyone else.”

            nope ….. believing a lie is not an hoax ……… it is just a lie ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I repeat my question to you, Amos: Every single homosexual is lying and taking part in an elaborate hoax where they don’t actually love their same-sex partners? You really believe that?

          • Amos Moses

            if all the world believes a lie ….. and repeats the lie …. it only make the whole world LIARS …….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Are you going to answer the question, or just make vague statements like that one?

          • Amos Moses

            you are a liar and believe a lie and spread LIES ………………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Wrong.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Drivel and logical fallacies from a bigoted cretin.

          • jscotttheory

            Every sentence fragment and ellipsis you type really confirms a double digit IQ. Par for the course on this little hate blog.

          • jscotttheory

            Do you possess the ability to communicate in complete rational sentences, or are fragments and ellipses your deal? Evidence of fragmented cognition.

          • Amos Moses

            ad hominem and epithet ………

          • jscotttheory

            Clearly those terms don’t mean what you think they mean.

          • Amos Moses

            clearly it is what you use all the time ……… and you should become familiar with them ….. as you will be called out when you employ them ……..

    • Amos Moses

      the empathy is reserved for their coming to Christ and not being in slavery to their flesh ….. which they have been and still are …….

    • Roy Hobs

      Another Anti-Christ commenting on a Christian Forum. The spirit of anti-Christ is Parasitical in nature. They hate us but can’t live without us.

      • Kyler Phoenix

        You are feeble minded.

        • Roy Hobs

          Sure…whatever you say.

          • Kyler Phoenix

            You prove it with every post. Am I wrong? Your IQ? Education? Last three books that you read?

        • Amos Moses

          just more ad hominem …….

          • Kyler Phoenix

            It is truth. Prove me wrong. Your IQ? School?

      • jscotttheory

        I really don’t hate anyone, and this site has proven useful for a qualitative case study of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        • Roy Hobs

          Define “Low Ability”. What are the qualified characteristics of ‘low ability’. And “who” determines this?

          • jscotttheory

            You’ll be able to read how I’ve operationalized the variables in the publish paper.

        • Roy Hobs

          “I really don’t hate anyone”.
          So you admit to having the Spirit of Anti-Christ. This is good. Honesty is good. Thanks.
          Question — I see from your profile/history that you only comment here — at a Christian Forum.
          Why?

          • jscotttheory

            No such admission of possessing something that doesn’t exist.

        • Roy Hobs

          Very Ironic that you would site this research study — Dunning-Kruger — to make your point.
          Shaking head in disbelief.

          • jscotttheory

            Ironic, how? Are you assuming to know how I am defining my variables and how each individual case is categorized?

          • Michael C

            Very Ironic that you would site this research study…

            cite.

          • Roy Hobs

            Thank you Grammar police.

    • Reason2012

      Should an 18 year old girl be allowed to marry her dad if they love each other? If not, why the hypocrisy of having reasons to deny the re-definition of marriage to include some people while demanding the government re-define marriage for other situations under the dishonest guise of “equal marriage rights for all’ or “marriage is about two people that love each other”?

      • Michael C

        Good questions, Reason2012

        Should an 18 year old girl be allowed to marry her dad if they love each other?

        The government believes it has a compelling interest in limiting marriage on the basis of close biological relation. Regardless of how old they are or how much they love each other, children cannot marry their parents.

        If not, why the hypocrisy of having reasons to deny the re-definition of marriage…

        Firstly, marriage is a right. If the government wants to limit a citizen’s rights, they need to have a pretty darned good reason.

        Marriage is only mostly (but not actually) “about two people that love each other.” The government doesn’t actually require that the parties love each other. Love is awesome but it’s not like it’s the only requirement for marriage.

        The government can set limitations on who can marry. There aren’t many but those that do exist must be based on compelling, secular reasoning. Close biological relation and the inability to legally consent are two such limitations. It’s quite easy for the government to defend these limitations with rational, secular arguments. The government is not permitted to place limitations on who can marry without these rational, secular arguments.

        Back in 1967, the state of Virginia tried to argue that it had sound arguments to limit marriage on the basis of race. They were unable to convince the courts that these arguments served a rational secular purpose.

        Now, you’re arguing that if the government cannot limit marriage in one way, it naturally follows that it cannot limit marriage in any way. This argument is fallacious. Just because it was found that the government could not limit marriage on the basis of race did not mean that the government could not still limit marriage in other ways (age, consent, biological relation, etc.).

        Last year, the official state purpose for limiting marriage to exclude gay couples was argued before the Supreme Court. Lawyers presented several arguments against the legal recognition of the marriages of gay couples.
        “Marriage has just always been between a man and a woman.” “The voters should get to decide who can marry.” “It will harm children.” “Some religious folk won’t like it.”
        All of these excuses were rejected by the Court. It was found that the government had no compelling, rational, secular reason to limit marriage on the basis of the sex of the participants. None of the arguments held up. Being that marriage is a basic right and the government has no good reason to limit gay couples from marrying, it must be permitted. You’re free to present your own personal arguments as to why the government shouldn’t recognize the marriages of gay couples but they’re irrelevant. They’re no better than the arguments that have already been rejected by the Supreme Court.

        As it relates to this case, the government argues that it has a compelling reason to prohibit people from marrying their adopted children. I agree with this limitation. This situation, however, was an exception.

        • Reason2012

          The government believes it has a compelling interest in limiting marriage on the basis of close biological relation. Regardless of how old they are or how much they love each other, children cannot marry their parents.

          You are exactly right. Thank you for proving why marriage is hence just one man and one woman:because by design it’s about a setup that has, in general, the possibility for pro-creation: a family unit (even if there are exceptions in individual cases that cannot).

          An 18 year old and her father offers no healthy possibility for that 100% of the time, hence it’s not defined as marriage. Even though they could abstain and even though they could adopt, it’s denied to be called a marriage.

          Two men offer NO possibility of that 100% of the time, hence it’s also not defined as marriage, even though they could adopt, it’s likewise has been denied to be called a marriage.

          And yet it is.

          Why the hypocrisy of pretending it has to do with procreation when it comes to forms of marriage you are against, but then pretending it has NOTHING to do with procreation when it comes to forms of marriage you demand we allow?

          And therein is the hypocrisy of the “we believe everyone should have the same rights” or “why should two people who love each other be denied marriage rights” exposed as false ways they use to destroy marriage.

          • Michael C

            Why the hypocrisy of pretending it has to do with procreation when it comes to forms of marriage you are against, but then pretending it has NOTHING to do with procreation when it comes to forms of marriage you demand we allow?

            Procreation can be a limiting factor when a couple is potentially committing harm against another person (their child).

            The ability to procreate is not a legal requirement for marriage. …but you already know that.

          • Reason2012

            The ability to procreate is not a legal requirement for marriage. …but you already know that.

            Yet you agree an 18 year old girl cannot marry her dad because suddenly pretending pro-creation is a requirement for marriage.
            If it’s not a requirement for marriage, who says they have to procreate?
            You pretend procreation is a requirement when it comes to an 18 year old and her father, so you deny them marriage.
            You pretend it’s NOT about procreation when it comes to two men, so you allow them to marriage.
            You’re being dishonest … but you already knew that.

          • Michael C

            Like I said above…

            You’re free to present your own personal arguments as to why the government shouldn’t recognize the marriages of gay couples but they’re irrelevant. They’re no better than the arguments that have already been rejected by the Supreme Court.

          • Reason2012

            You’re free to present your own personal arguments as to why the government shouldn’t recognize the marriages of gay couples..

            I just did and you supported it: because marriage is all about pro-creation.
            You agreed because an 18 year old marrying her dad creates problems with procreation.

            So again, what you keep running from, which proves you know this is right:

            Is a marriage all about pro-creation? If so, then two men cannot be married either.

            Is it NOT all about pro-creation? Then you have NO grounds of denying an 18 year old girl marrying her dad.

            So which is it?

            The argument of “allow one violation you must allow them all” is quite valid and you’ve just painted yourself into a corner. You avoid addressing this which proves you know the position you defend is hypocritical and are now being dishonest.

            As long as everyone else starts noticing this hypocrisy and dishonesty of same-gender activists, it will only be a matter of time…

        • Reason2012

          “Firstly, marriage is a right.

          Yet you just got done saying that an 18 year old girl should not marry her father and gave reasons for it. So clearly marriage of different forms is NOT a right. Government redefining marriage to mean anything is NOT a right.

          Everyone already DOES have the same right to marry one person of the opposite_sex. If they don’t want that right, that’s not the same as it being denied them that activists make it out to be.

          If the government wants to limit a citizen’s rights, they need to have a pretty darned good reason.

          You just got done outlining quite perfectly their good reason: biological basis. And than you for defending the very reason why two men are not a marriage and that government has no right to throw the biological reasons out the window and re-define marriage in the case of two men or an 18 year old girl and her dad.

          • Michael C

            So clearly marriage of different forms is NOT a right.

            I shouldn’t have to repeat myself. Please read the whole paragraph.

            Everyone already DOES have the same right to marry one person of the opposite_sex.

            If that argument is valid, so is this; “Everyone already DOES have the same right to marry one person of the same race.”

            *hint* neither argument is valid.

            You just got done outlining quite perfectly their good reason: biological basis. And than you for defending the very reason why two men are not a marriage and that government has no right to throw the biological reasons out the window and re-define marriage in the case of two men or an 18 year old girl and her dad.

            Word salad. Work on that.

          • Reason2012

            Word salad. Work on that.So you cannot address the point. That’s what you should work on.

        • Reason2012

          Marriage is only mostly (but not actually) “about two people that love each other.”And yet you always claimed marriage is about two people that love each other and that the should not be denied the right to marry. Glad you finally admit loving each other does not mean every configuration of “but we love each other” has the “right” to be called a marriage. You continue to contradict yourself, outlining reasons to deny others the “right” to be married while flying the false banner of “all have the right to be married”.

          The government doesn’t actually require that the parties love each other. Love is awesome but it’s not like it’s the only requirement for marriage.

          Correct. You’ve unwittingly pointed out marriage is about a setup that has the possibility for procreation – a man and a woman – NOT about love (although it makes sense that in most cases they do in fact love each other).

          The government can set limitations on who can marry. There aren’t many but those that do exist must be based on compelling, secular reasoning. Close biological relation and the inability to legally consent are two such limitations.

          Exactly: because the point of marriage is PROCREATION that you just admitted. And yet how many times do same-gender activist claim “who said marriage was about_sex or procreation?!” and yet here you are unwittingly admitting it’s precisely that.

          • Michael C

            Glad you finally admit loving each other does not mean every configuration of “but we love each other” has the “right” to be called a marriage

            I never said that love was the only requirement for marriage. Nobody else ever made that argument either.

            Procreation, blah blah blah procreation, procreation, blah blah procreation.

            Please cite the law that requires married couples to have the ability to procreate.

          • Reason2012

            I never said that love was the only requirement for marriage. Nobody else ever made that argument either.

            Sure they do – it’s their main argument. “”I do not understand why two people who love each other cannot get married…” they say it all the time.
            Yet you say “NOBODY has ever made that argument”.
            You’re being dishonest, Michael.

        • Reason2012

          Back in 1967, the state of Virginia tried to argue that it had sound arguments to limit marriage on the basis of race. They were unable to convince the courts that these arguments served a rational secular purpose.

          Because marriage is one man and one woman – pro-creation. Not race. Not an 18 year old girl and her dad. Not two women. Not two men.

          Now, you’re arguing that if the government cannot limit marriage in one way, it naturally follows that it cannot limit marriage in any way. This argument is fallacious.

          Not at all – activists like you have shouted for years that “marriage has nothing to do with pro-creation or_sex!” and yet here you are now using “procreation and_sex” to deny an 18 year old from marrying her dad.

          So which is it?

          Is a marriage all about pro-creation and_sex? If so, then two men cannot be married either.
          Is it NOT all about pro-creation and_sex? Then you have NO grounds of denying an 18 year old girl marrying her dad.

          So the argument of “allow one violation you must allow them all” is quite valid and you’ve just painted yourself into a corner.

          So which is it?

          • Michael C

            Like I said above…

            You’re free to present your own personal arguments as to why the government shouldn’t recognize the marriages of gay couples but they’re irrelevant. They’re no better than the arguments that have already been rejected by the Supreme Court.

          • Reason2012

            Is a marriage all about pro-creation and_sex? If so, then two men cannot be married either.
            Is it NOT all about pro-creation and_sex? Then you have NO grounds of denying an 18 year old girl marrying her dad.

            So the argument of “allow one violation you must allow them all” is quite valid and you’ve just painted yourself into a corner.

            So which is it?

            So now that your hypocrisy has been exposed, you may deflect or vanish. You’ll be asked this question every time you bring up your support for same-gender marriage and you will again deflect or vanish – this way others will see how the hypocrisy of the same-gender ‘marriage’ is a dishonest farce.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Amos Moses

            and the SC is NEVER wrong ………… dred scott ………

        • Reason2012

          Just because it was found that the government could not limit marriage on the basis of race did not mean that the government could not still limit marriage in other ways (age, consent, biological relation, etc.).

          Bingo. Which is why they CAN limit marriage to NOT include “two men” and activists’ cries of “you’re a bigot! You’re denying others the right to marry” is a farce.

          Last year, the official state purpose for limiting marriage to exclude gay couples was argued before the Supreme Court. All of these excuses were rejected by the Court.

          They didn’t hear the reasons of how marriage is about_sex and pro-creation that you just laid out and supported. So they should have been tasked with either allowing incest marriage if you admit marriage is NOT about pro-creation and_sex, or you keep denying incest marriage AND marriage between two men or two women because marriage IS about pro-creation and_sex – the biological family unit.

          Re-read what you wrote as you just gave reasons to either allow incest marriage along with your two men or two women, or to deny them all. Can’t have it both ways without being a hypocrite, which is the point – allow one perversion, throwing “sex_is NOT needed in a marriage, neither is pro-creation” out the window, then you must allow them all since you can no longer use that reason to limit some while ignoring that reason to not limit others.

          Give it time – people have realized how much of a farce same-gender marriage is, and it will either be overturned, or all perversions will be allowed due to using the same false arguments of it having “nothing to do with pro-creation”.

  • Robert

    Total depravity. We know who is sitting in the saddle of those judges
    By necessary men sin do to their nature
    They can do no other when Satan is in control
    Nor can they choose the good and best rider.

  • Robert

    Romans 3:12 no one does right not one. Here we see all mens total depravity in the decision of some judges.So much easier to see total depravity in others than our selves.

  • Sister Boogie

    You can say that 2 + 2 = 5, but it doesn’t. Two men are not a married couple. Why are these deluded people so dead set on bending the laws to their delusions?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    They call this marriage? Superior Court of Pennsylvania is mentally ill.

    • Amos Moses

      the entire society here is ……….

      • OhSoGood

        Then move sweetcheeks.

        • Amos Moses

          sorry .. did you have anything to contribute …… i thought not ….

  • michael louwe

    “Nino Esposito, 80, had been with his partner Roland Bosee, 69, for 40
    years when the two decided that Esposito would adopt Bosee as his son so that they could lower their inheritance tax and also be considered “family” under the law.”
    .
    .
    Typical of the LGBTQs who r mostly lawless, greedy n selfish people n r bound for the depths of hell.
    .
    All bc the liberals of the Blue States r pandering for the LGBTQ-vote so that they could defeat the conservatives of the Red States. This is besides the liberals pandering for the Black-vote with special favors n the Hispanic-vote with Amnesty/Dream Acts for their illegal immigrants, since the 1960s.

  • 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.

    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!

  • Liberal Elitist

    It’s heartbreaking how this devoted couple was forced to jump through so many hoops to finally achieve what others take for granted. Best wishes to the happy couple. I admire them for enduring persecution and courageously taking a stand against hate.

    • Amos Moses

      fake persecution ……….. and they will never be happy ………

      • Liberal Elitist

        With each post, you show your misery in a life of jealousy and loneliness. I pity your misfortune and hope that one day you find happiness.

        • Amos Moses

          sure …….. that is why you come to christian forums …… for pity ….. when it is you we pity ….. and you have no pity for the abused and enslaved persons of homosexuality …….

  • Amos Moses

    Why Can’t I Marry the Robot I Love? The Rise of Robosexuals

    • OhSoGood

      Machines cannot give legal consent.

      My goodness man… you’re not that stupid.

      • Windowr

        And what if they’re programmed to?

        • OhSoGood

          Then it is force, not consent.

          • Windowr

            Do you force your smartphone to navigate to this website?

          • OhSoGood

            Yes, by telling it so. It has no choice in the matter.

          • Windowr

            And did that cause it harm?

          • OhSoGood

            It’s not about harm… it’s about informed consent. Machines have no option: they do not consent, they follow orders.

            Wow… what an insane conversation.

          • Windowr

            It’s not about harm… it’s about informed consent.

            It’s about your presumptuous assertions that the law guiding man and woman marriage and relationships will apply to man and robot.

            Ever heard of the ecosexuals?

            Wow… what an insane conversation.

            Well, you know who opened the doors for such insanity.

      • Amos Moses

        says who …. how do you determine what has sentience ……… we are just meat machines ….. we give consent ….. and when did consent become the standard ……………..

        • OhSoGood

          Says the law, sweetcheeks. It’s not complicated, but I’ve no doubt you’ll never understand it.

          In marriage, consent has always been the standard in the US of A. No consent, no marriage license.

          You poor dear.

  • Neonic

    Have sex with your son, then marry him.

    OK, sure, let’s include these nice people, nothing wrong with their behavior at all…

    • Michael C

      They had been living as a couple for forty years when they decided that adoption was the only means for legally protecting themselves. They never had any sort of father/son relationship. They were both fully grown adults when they met each other.

      • Reason2012

        Is a marriage all about pro-creation? If so, then two men cannot be married either.

        Is it NOT all about pro-creation? Then you have NO grounds of denying an 18 year old girl marrying her dad.

        So which is it?

        The argument of “allow one perverse definition of marriage you must allow them all” is quite valid and you’ve just painted yourself into a corner.

        You avoid addressing this which proves you know the position you defend is hypocritical and are now being dishonest.

        As long as everyone else starts noticing this hypocrisy and dishonesty of same-gender activists, it will only be a matter of time…

      • Reason2012

        They had been living as a couple for forty years … They never had any sort of father/son relationship. They were both fully grown adults when they met each other.

        A father / son relationship has nothing to do with age: it exists as long as you are both alive. You’re being dishonest.

        • Michael C

          You’re aware that they’re not actually related, right?

          • Reason2012

            I was referring to your claim “they were both fully grown adults when they met” implying this means it’s true that “they never had any sort of father/son relationship” – being adults does not mean you automatically do not have a father / son relationship. But as usually you deflect and try to switch the topic to something that we were not talking about, which is dishonest, Michael.

            Still waiting for your response: Is a marriage all about pro-creation? If so, then two men cannot be married.

            Is it NOT all about pro-creation? Then you have NO grounds of denying an 18 year old girl marrying her dad.

            So which is it?

            The argument of “allow one violation you must allow them all” is quite valid and you’ve just painted yourself into a corner.

            You avoid addressing this which proves you know the position you defend is hypocritical and are now being dishonest.

            As long as everyone else starts noticing this hypocrisy and dishonesty of same-gender activists, it will only be a matter of time…

          • Amos Moses

            and you think that makes a difference …. right ………..

      • Neonic

        If they never had a father/son relationship, and one adopted the other,
        that makes them both LIARS.

        Homosexuals seem to hate telling the truth. No integrity whatsoever.

        • Michael C

          Apparently, the route they chose, however desperate and misguided, was 100% legal.

          • Amos Moses

            and 100% IMMORAL …………….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            Opinion ……….

          • OhSoGood

            Then don’t do it.

            Problem solved.

          • Amos Moses

            does not solve it for the immoral ……….

          • OhSoGood

            Meh… your opinion won’t change anything.

          • Amos Moses

            my opinion wont change …….. but it is not MY opinion ……. i just agree with it …..

          • OhSoGood

            Nah… it’s just your opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            Nah ………

          • OhSoGood

            How’s that alligator hunting going for you? Still knocking em in the head with a stump?

        • OhSoGood

          Your ignorance of law is sad.

          Any adult may adopt any other adult to form familial relationship. The relationship needn’t be parent and child.

  • Reason2012

    So here’s how you expose same-gender marriage activists for their dishonesty in pretending “marriage equality for all” or “if two people love each other they should be allowed to get married”, which then leads to every perversion known to man also being allowed to be called a marriage: Ask them:

    Is a marriage all about pro-creation? If so, then two men or two women cannot be married either.

    Is it NOT all about pro-creation? Then you have NO grounds of denying an 18 year old girl marrying her dad. After all, who says marriage has anything to do with pro-creation?!

    So which is it?

    The argument of “allow one violation you must allow them all” is quite valid and they are hypocrites for pretending to be against an 18 year old girl marrying her dad because of pro-creation, while pretending to men can be married “because marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation”.

    • Jenny Ondioline

      So marriage is all about procreation? Does that mean you would deny marriage to the elderly and the infertile?

      • Reason2012

        The configuration, not the exceptions.
        In general, a man and a woman can have a biological family most of the time.
        In general, NO cases of two men can have a biological family.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Which is not, and never has been, a condition of marriage.

          • Reason2012

            Since marriage has nothing to do with pro-creation, you’re ok with an 18 year old girl marrying her dad then?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I find it disgusting, but if both are adults then no laws are being broken.

          • Reason2012

            I find it disgusting

            What’s disgusting about it? Marriage supposedly has nothing to do with pro-creation. Thank you for proving that you realize it does.
            And this is why two men is also frowned upon.
            You can’t have it both ways, Jenny. And therein are the lies of “equal marriage rights for all” and “marriage is not about procreation” exposed.
            Take care.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t try to have it both ways. If people are adults they are responsible for their actions. The difference between us is that I’m not out there insisting they not do it because I am a [insert religion of your choice here]. If no one is being hurt then I don’t care. But I’d sure be interested in knowing about the scads of 18-year old girls wishing to marry their fathers out there…

          • Reason2012

            Sure you do, “it’s disgusting”, you at first try to say.

            Ok so now you approve of incest marriage and think it should be legal. It shows what others have said and activists have tried to call the slippery slope argument: allow one perversion and you must allow them all. And here you are saying incest marriage should be legal as well.

            I rest my case.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Rest your case all you like, it’s got more holes in it than swiss cheese.
            A girl marrying her father I find disgusting, yes. But I know how to mind my own business. I know that belonging to some self-righteous faith doesn’t make my opinion any greater than anyone else’s. I never said it should be legal, though. That’s you trying to put words in my mouth to make it look like I’m saying something I’m not.
            And you’ve conveniently ignored my question about where all the 18-year old girls clamoring to marry their fathers are.

    • OhSoGood

      Procreation is not required for marriage.

      Marriage is not required for procreation.

      Simple facts.

      • Reason2012

        So you support an 18 year old girl marrying her dad.
        As I said: support one perverse re-definition of marriage, the rest will come flooding in.

        • OhSoGood

          Insuring someone isn’t making mutant babies is not the same as requiring procreation in marriage. Nowhere near the same thing.

          Marriage is not required for procreation. There is no law, natural or man made, that guarantees a child both parents. War, animal attack, auto accident… would all be non-existent if there were.

          You live in a fantasy world.

          • Reason2012

            insuring someone isn’t making mutant babies

            So now you’re implying procreation is REQUIRED for marriage – who says they have to procreate?

            And now you’re admitting marriage is required for procreation as well after you just got done saying marriage is not required for procreation, as what’s to stop them from “making mutant babies” if they’re not married? Nothing. But you seem to think keeping them from getting married will prevent them from procreating, or “mutant babies”, as you put it.

            Ah, the indefensible, hypocritical lie of “marriage is NOT about procreation”.

          • OhSoGood

            Not once did I imply such a thing. See, it’s not marriage between an adult and her father that is at question… it’s them making mutant babies, which is a crime whether they are married or not. And frankly… I couldn’t care less if they get married. It’s none of my business.

            Marriage requires no procreation. Procreation requires no marriage. Simple facts.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage requires no procreation

            Yet you want to stop them from being married because they’d have mutant babies – you want to stop them from being married, because you are now claiming they have to procreate. You continue to contradict yourself.

            Procreation requires no marriage.

            Yet you pretend the only way they’ll have mutant babies is if they get married – that’s you pretending that procreation, having mutant babies, requires marriage, as if they cannot procreate, cannot have mutant babies, if they’re not married. You continue to contradict yourself.

            Procreation is intrinsically linked to marriage, which even you cannot escape from that simple fact in every response you make. You attempt to defend the indefensible, which leads you to contradict your own claims in every post.

          • OhSoGood

            I don’t want to stop anyone from getting married. Now you’re just lying.

            I never said they had to procreate.

            Does your god approve of your lies?

          • Reason2012

            I don’t want to stop anyone from getting married. Now you’re just lying.

            So you don’t mind if they create mutant babies, as you put it?

            It’s them making mutant babies, which is a crime

            So if a woman’s baby has a birth defect that’s a crime? Please cite that law as that one’s being broken daily.

            But glad you admit you’re ok with incest marriages, which was the original point that those who argue for same-gender marriage open the flood gate to all perversions, including incest marriages.

            Does your god approve of your lies?

            I’m not the one claiming “marriage equality for all” while being against certain forms of marriage because of “mutant babies”. Although now you try to claim you’re for incest marriages.

            I’m not the one claiming “marriage is not about pro-creation” while pointing out that if an 18 year old marries her dad they’ll have “mutant babies”, which you said earlier.

            So keep changing your position, first pretending to be against incest marriage because of mutant babies, and now trying to pretend you don’t care.

          • OhSoGood

            My position hasn’t changed. You lie about what I’ve said.

            Good. It makes you my ally. Thanks, sweetie.

        • Tangent002

          An 18-year-old marrying her father would be legally superfluous. Close blood relations already have most, if not all, of the rights and benefits conferred by marriage.

          • Reason2012

            Showing yet again how activists are being dishonest when they claim to want “marriage equality for all” while being against some getting married.

      • Jason Todd

        According to whom?

        • OhSoGood

          US law.

          • Jason Todd

            No. Try again.

          • OhSoGood

            No need.

          • Jason Todd

            Because you can’t. You’ve got nothing.

          • OhSoGood

            How so? There is no legal requirement for procreation in marriage. There is no legal requirement for marriage in order to procreate.

          • Jason Todd

            Because it is not an answer. Try again.

          • OhSoGood

            No need. Until you show a requirement for procreation in marriage, I’ve nothing to do.

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, the burden is on you.

            Who said it is okay to have children out of wedlock? “US law” is not an answer because US law does not address it.

          • OhSoGood

            Yes, law. If not addressed, it’s not banned. Have fun!

          • Jason Todd

            So you refuse to answer the question?

          • OhSoGood

            Oh, I did.

          • Jason Todd

            No, you didn’t. The fact of the matter is, it has never been okay.

          • OhSoGood

            In your mind.

            Reality is marriage requires no procreation. Procreation requires no marriage.

          • Jason Todd

            No, not in my mind. According to God.

          • OhSoGood

            Your god is just your choice. Nothing more.

          • Jason Todd

            My God is the same One you will stand before in judgment for your arrogance, among other things.

          • OhSoGood

            Uh huh… that’s nice dear.

          • Jason Todd

            So you don’t believe in God, huh? You will when you die and find yourself in hell. By then it’ll be too late.

          • OhSoGood

            No foolin…

          • OhSoGood

            O body has to say it’s OK…

          • OhSoGood

            I never said it was “ok”. I said neither requires the other. Simple fact.

  • Croquet_Player

    Forty years together, and finally able to properly safeguard their joint finances and property. Best wishes and warmest congratulations to them.

    • Amos Moses

      and they will be burning in hell for their burning desire now …… wonderful trade off ………

      • Jenny Ondioline

        Opinion, no basis in fact.

        • Amos Moses

          it is good you recognize yourself ……

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Opinions are all you have.

          • Amos Moses

            “Opinions are all you have.”

            back at cha sister …. or brother ….. or whatever you are ………. miss liar ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Opinions are all you have, and because they aren’t the law of the land you feel helpless.

          • Amos Moses

            nope ……. more of your lies miss liar ……… i pity anyone who listens to your lies about the “law” makes it all hunky and dory ……. lies, lies, and more lies …… you lies to those here ….. and you repeat the lies to homosexuals and transpersons ……… miss liar …….

        • Scott Unchained

          Especially yours, you poor little bored thing.

          Don’t they have porn sites for lesbians?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            How would I know? I’m neither a lesbian nor a woman.
            Facts. They are your friend. They can’t hurt you.

      • Croquet_Player

        Or not.

    • Reason0verhate

      Men who act like women are disgusting.

      • Croquet_Player

        I’m sure we all have personal opinions about what is or isn’t disgusting, and none of them matter to anyone but ourselves. So, thanks for sharing. No one cares.

      • OhSoGood

        How do you know they act like women?

        Seems your ignorance is showing…

        Don’t know any gay folks do you?

    • OhSoGood

      Agreed!

  • OhSoGood

    Congrats guys! This is awesome!