Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Gay Parents / Strangers & Custody Rights

Aside from the acceptance of a perverse lifestyle as normal and the granting of custody of children to those who promote and engage in perversion, the recent court rulings on 'equal protection' for homosexuals opens a gaping hole in the structure of the family. Not simply in a moralistic conceptual way, but in a tangible way that will undoubtedly show itself soon.

The Mercury News writes: "The rulings strengthened the custody rights of non-biological parents in same-sex unions and clarified the uncertain legal landscape for thousands of gay couples across California who decide to have children." What the rulings actually do is to grant the possibility of custody rights to individuals who have no legal marital or even domestic-partner connection to the children. Again from the Mercury News:

"Now, the high court has extended that principle to custody feuds like one unfolding in Santa Clara County for Linda Hulberg, a Morgan Hill woman who has been seeking parental rights for two years from her former partner. Hulberg was in a three-year relationship with a woman who bore twin boys, and acted as a co-parent until their 2003 breakup, according to court papers." (Gay parents gain key custody rights, Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 23, 2005)

Consider what's being said here: a woman who was friends with another woman for three years and acted as a "co-parent" during those three years can have access and even custody of the woman's biological children. The article of course quotes the 'conservative' viewpoint as: "By saying that children can have two moms, the court has undermined the family." While true, it misses the larger picture that basically anyone who has lived in one's house or even occasionally taken care of another's children can have potential custody rights of those children. Consider the implications...

Can the teenage babysitter who has come to one's home for the past five years, thus acting as a 'co-parent' (definition questionable of course), claim custody rights after her/his termination? Can the nanny who has fed, watched over and taken care of one's children claim custody rights over them? If a three-year relationship without any legal status can grant one rights to custody over one's kids, how can the state, who feeds, teaches, cares for and raises one's children, five days a week, for more than a decade through the public school system not qualify for custody?

Another ruling "gives gay partners the same protections as married couples in terms of how they are treated by businesses." This will of course play into the state's anti-discrimination policies and thus again put pressure on churches and businesses that believe homosexuality to be perversion and incompatible with employment...

26 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:58 AM

    Reminds of a recent story where two middleaged men - straight - friends decided to apply for domestic partnership status. Gay activists were upset! lol

    dharp

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:53 PM

    Your kidding me right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:55 PM

    Your response to this court case. Are you that shallow minded?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:40 PM

    Interesting. A friend of mine said this was here and I had to make a comment. I happen to know this woman very well. She now has full custody of those children and Thank God!! You don't know anything about this situation and yet you judge just based on your sick sense of being a Christian. Jesus would be ashamed of you for judgements. You certainly have the right to your opinion, as sick as it is. It seems that you would rather see these two children with parent who a court would see as unfit rather than to be with a responsible parent that is able to care for them. By the way,the ability to physically have a child does not make you a parent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:05 PM

    Good point anonymous(2:40pm). I too am a very close personal friend of Linda Hulberg and have known her for years. Even during the time in which she was with this "Other woman, her partner that they had children with. THEY HAD A RELATIONSHIP and decided to have kids together period. No different then an unmarried couple who would do the same. COnsider what is being said here.... I quote you.. "A woman who was FRIENDS with another woman for three years and acted as "Co-parent" during those years can have access and even custody to the other womans biological children". First of all, those children were in no way biologically related to either woman. Those children were both egg & sperm donor creation. Second, the term "Friends" that you use here is like saying she just was around to help out when needed. Like a neighbor or something. They were in a committed relationship for three years.
    I thought that the comments/comparison of how a "Daycare" worked or "Nanny" whom would take care of a child 24/7 or 24/5 should also be giving the opportunity to go after someone elses children. What?.....Please two totally different situations here. You can not compare a childcrare provider to someone who had a committment with another indivudual(Partner,significant other, boyfriend, girlfriend) to have children as a means to now try and apply this same logic.

    Maybe you should take in consideration WHY the court took these kids away from their "Other Mother". COurts just don't take kids away becuase they can, it usually becuase there is something seriouly wrong. In this case there was and still is. GOOD for the court system for finally recognizing that CHILDREN come first!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Micah, you are obviously an idiot. You know absolutely NOTHING about this AMAZING woman and her boys. It is interesting to know that bigotry and stereotyping are alive and well in America. You "fake Christians" have the audacity to hold up the Bible as a form of "verification" to your outlandish and vile views. I say to ALL of you "haters" out there....GET A LIFE. Linda is a loving mother and has those boys in a loving home where they feel loved and part of a family. Why would anyone deny a child that? If you have "issues" with your own life, might I suggest that you use this...."web site"?? to further your own rehab and lay off things that do not concern you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:24 PM

    "Just friends" my ass. Linda went through the hell trying to take care of these boys (and still does, thank you very much) because the woman who carried DONATED egg AND sperm was and remains a TOTALLY unstable woman!!! Get your facts right before you condemn ANYONE for loving & caring for 2 boys who were in desperate need of love,attention, and the most BASIC needs any child needs growing up.

    You don't know her, you don't know the life she & her partner have given to these boys, and you certainly don't know the facts behind this case. The family these boys have today is what most kids dream of! Two loving, devoted and caring parents, no matter the gender of either parent, is what the COURT saw fit give the boys.

    Do some research & perhaps you may learn the full story before posting your bigoted values for the world to see.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3:27 PM

    Excellent point Anonymous. Linda Hulberg is one of my Best Friends and I have known her for over 20 years.
    First of all, you have no right to judge her based on information that you do not have. Those 2 boys are in a loving home, and are the happiest that I have ever seen them. The Court took away those children from their Mother for a number of reasons, and the Court decided to give Linda Hulberg FULL custody because they found her to be a very loving, dependable, responsible Parent.....period. Linda fought long and hard for just partial custody, and the Court ended up giving her FULL custody. You figure it out. The Courts obviously have made the right decision in this case, and Linda has the full support of her family and friends, and certainly don't need people like you, that are so narrow minded. If you knew Linda the way that I know her you might not be saying that things that you have.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeff:

    Standing opposed to the Bible is standing opposed to its author. Is that really where you want to be?

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Turretinfan:

    I am opposed to using the Bible for bigotted reasons. Let's not forget that slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries waved the Bible around and used "out of text" passages to justify AND verify the slave market. Much in the same way Micah (and possibly yourself) are using Holy Script for something it was not meant for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah, I hit a nerve! How wonderful! :)

    While I understand that people are strongly opinionated about issues they're personally involved with, the subjective is never the proper means by which to judge a situation. My post obviously got some air time on someone's blog or forum, which is why the huge increase in comments on a blog that has seen fewer than this in its entire lifespan. ;) Given the traffic increase, I've had to disable anonymous comments (and anonymous backslapping). If you want to comment, you're going to have to be honest.

    Firstly, for folks who are decrying my "judgment", you seem awful quick to call me names without knowing me or actually reading what I wrote. This is a great example of the kind of "tolerance" that folks today want, not true tolerance of different opinions but rather a "tolerance" of those who hold the SAME viewpoints only. Those who disagree or find activities immoral are immediately called "shallow minded", "sick", "idiot" and the like. I hope others practice true tolerance toward you rather than that you've shown me here.

    I am a Christian, and therefore my worldview is founded upon the Word of God found within the Bible. I realize that for you who judge based on your experience alone, such an idea seems foreign, even backwards, but I, unlike you, believe that my experience not sufficient to judge and answer all the questions of the universe. I therefore must turn to a objective source of truth, unchanging and firm, clear and unwavering. I find this in Scripture.

    In Scripture I find not only condemnation for the activities of Linda Hulberg and her live-in girlfriend, but of my own activities and heart. Morals can be, as evident through this event and the ongoing dismantling of any kind of moral standard in this country, are slippery, found solely on the subjective whims of the populace. Just a few years ago Californians voted to define marriage as it had been defined for millennia, a short while later we see the court overturn the decision and now it appears that most have given up on the issue all together. This is evidence, as Paul writes to us in Romans, that we've been "given over" to depravity to do that which we all know is wrong and to pat each other on the back in agreement thereof. (As is shown so clearly in the comments here.) But isn't it clear from the sad events played out in the courtroom of 2005 that these perverse activities have a detrimental effect on adults, children and society alike?

    Yet, Jesus, the God-Man who died on a cross two-thousand years ago to bring salvation to His people, is not ashamed of the declarations of His father in the Law of Moses that homosexuality is perverse contra-moral activity. Nor is Jesus the Son of God, member of the Trinity, ashamed of that which was written by His apostle, Paul, who wrote as the Holy Spirit gave inspiration. Thus, it is evident, that Jesus, the risen Savior of Scripture, of whom you know and are afraid to lay a claim against, would not be ashamed by my post declaring as Scripture does, that homosexuality is perversion.

    That said, we're all sinners and in dire need of saving from the wrath of God due us because of our various sins, be it homosexuality or gluttony and it is only by faith in that one Jesus, the Christ, Messiah that we can be saved from God's wrath against our sins. Jesus, whose death paid the debt owed by the people God has chosen to reign with Christ.

    To the specific comments:
    "By the way,the ability to physically have a child does not make you a parent."

    While I think you need to read a dictionary, I do understand your sentiments and generally agree that the better "parent" should be given custody. That said, however, the fact that (as another commenter noted) that neither of these women were biologically related to the children and that the "children were both egg & sperm donor creation" should clue us all into something substantial... since when can two women make babies? They can't. They have to go through obscene measures to have children, and they do so for such immoral and selfish motives that in the end the "family" is split by a court. What a perverse time we live in, when people can make, kill and do with children however they want... just so long as no one calls them "sinners". Can't you hear your conscience screaming out the impropriety of this whole endeavor? Have you really shut your ears so as not to hear the Law of God hammering away at you?

    "Second, the term "Friends" that you use here is like saying she just was around to help out when needed...They were in a committed relationship for three years. "

    THREE YEARS? Wow... such... devotion. I've known my coworkers longer than that but I don't want to have someone else's children with them. The fact remains, a baby-sitter of five years can often spend more time with children than some parents... should that give them rights to the children? If not, why not based on this decision.

    "You can not compare a childcrare provider to someone who had a committment with another individual (Partner,significant other, boyfriend, girlfriend) to have children as a means to now try and apply this same logic."

    Actually, I can. Because, as you stated, neither of these individuals was the biological parent of the children, and these two... selfish individuals chose to have children after knowing each other for such a short time. What am I saying?! It's two women, who had no legal right to marry and no God-given ability to make children. As stated, there are nannies and baby-sitters who see and take care of children better than parents, why can this decision NOT be used in these cases? What legal basis? There was no legal agreement between these women, no marriage law enabling them some "status".

    "COurts just don't take kids away becuase they can, it usually becuase there is something seriouly wrong..."

    A fickle bunch you are, decrying the courts when they rule against you and yet holding them up in cases such as this as the bastion of hope. Surely you don't believe the courts are so objective as to only remove children from unfit homes.

    "Micah, you are obviously an idiot. You know absolutely NOTHING about this AMAZING woman and her boys"

    I never suggested I knew anything about them other than what was in the article. My declarations against their sinfulness stands. Lesbianism, homosexuality is perversion, condemned by God as much as adultery, gluttony or even disobedience to one's parents.

    Notice the entire moral content of my post took up only the first few words of the first paragraph. And yet you and your friends have judged me on the basis of a few words.

    The fact is that you don't know me and yet called me an idiot, bigot, and telling me I need rehab... What an amazing double standard here! Thine own medicine partake!

    "Get your facts right before you condemn ANYONE for loving & caring for 2 boys"

    Could you please (after signing in with your name and password) tell me where I "condemned" anyone? Especially in light of all the tolerant, loving comments of you and your friends?

    "You don't know her, you don't know the life she & her partner have given to these boys"

    So what? That doesn't change the fact that the whole situation, as much as any heterosexual divorce, is the sad result of human sinfulness and rebellion against God. Regardless of how nice, loving or compassionate a person is, they can still be sinners in the sight of the God who created them.


    "you have no right to judge her based on information that you do not have"

    What judgment are you referring to? That I find their activities perverse? That's based on the apparent lesbian relationship... what other information do I need to apply the judgment of God (not my own) to them?

    I'm sure I'd find Linda to be a nice person, a wonderful mother even. She might be an outstanding citizen who saves old ladies from walking into the path of oncoming traffic... But that does not change the fact that she is, as we all are, a sinner before the sight of the God of Scripture who declares that all forms of sexual perversion, be it sex before marriage or homosexuality are sins against God's law and will be met with his wrath. No amount of good mothering can turn away the wrath of God. Only faith in God's Son, Jesus the Messiah, who shed his blood on a cross in the place of those who would ultimately believe in Him can turn that wrath. I beg you, and Linda if she bothers to read this, to turn from your ways and to Christ.

    Finally, the intent of the post was to note the failure of the court to rightly acknowledge the rights of parents over the rights of others. This is, I believe, yet one more step toward a future in which children will be removed from homes of the so-called "intolerant" (read: Christians and others who believe in an objective morality).

    The moral-discussing content of my post consists of, perhaps, five words, and yet because of those five words you have branded me an idiot, bigot, judgmental, sick, narrow-minded and the like. If this is your view of "tolerance", I prefer your hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeff,

    "Much in the same way Micah (and possibly yourself) are using Holy Script for something it was not meant for..."

    What do you mean, "not meant for"? I don't believe anyone could truly, exegetically make a case the slavery found in the South in the 1800s... but a case for declaring homosexuality a sin... I think that's pretty clear.

    I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law is proven true again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Really Micah?

    Tell me...just what did Jesus say about homosexuality? The Bible also denounces prostitution....yet, apparently Jesus "embraced" transients and prostitutes alike. Funny...it seems a "couple" of "kooks" embraced the so-called "debauched" of our society...(i.e. Gandhi, Mother Teresa etc.)

    BTW, I agree with you with this statement...

    I don't believe anyone could truly, exegetically make a case the slavery found in the South in the 1800s...

    Yet, that is EXACTLY what happened. And, I "retract" my "idiot" moniker...it was unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Tell me...just what did Jesus say about homosexuality? The Bible also denounces prostitution....yet, apparently Jesus "embraced" transients and prostitutes alike..."

    Do you presuppose a hyper-dispensationalism? Do you think somehow the God that Jesus called His father was somehow different from the one Jesus quoted? Do you think Jesus disagreed with certain verses in Leviticus?

    I'm not sure what "transients" has to do with the discussion, but Christ loved those who recognized their sin and repented of it. Consider the woman at the well who brought others to Christ even after he told her she was nothing more than an adulteress who worshiped in ignorance.

    Again, the embracing of the sick and poor and the like does not make up for a single sin against an infinite God. Sure, many people do many good civil works toward others, but apart from faith in Christ they'll die in their sins.

    John 8:24
    "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

    But I realize that's not the Jesus most folks like. They'll take the Jesus who fed 5000, but reject him (just like they did) when he tells them "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."... From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

    Most folks have a Jesus of their own design who has no basis in history or Scripture...one who said nice things and did nice things and ultimately died a shameful death on a Roman torture device for no good reason. I believe everything he said, not just pieces that appeal.

    I appreciate the fact that you retracted your comment. Thank you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "
    Yet, that is EXACTLY what happened"


    No, it wasn't. Sure, some folks pounded a Bible and declared they had a right to slaves, but the slavery allowed in the Law was that of indentured servitude as a result of crimes or debts. The Law specifically defined how one could fall into slavery and what treatment they would undergo, and how it was immoral to take slaves by force. Slaves also had to be let go after six years.

    See, a lot of people read bits and pieces of the Bible, take it out of context and attempt to make a case for this or that. I would suggest that it is what you did when you said:"...what did Jesus say about homosexuality...". Others use the fact that the Bible allowed slavery as a reason to deny its stand against homosexuality without actually reading what it has to say about either topic.

    They don't take into account the fact that Jesus was a Jew, and thus bound to the Law of God, and as God was His father and as he was the second person of the Trinity He therefore wrote the same Law. Thus the Law of Moses was Christ's Law. He wrote it.

    This is what I meant by "exegetically". No one can make the case that the type of slavery found in the South was Biblical, because the context of Scripture cannot hold it up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Micah,
    Shouldn't you be focusing on more pending issues within your own church, such as molestation? How about writting an article on how you plan to address that issue. Or an article on how all of your Christian follower's sin with their various affairs and lying. If your article was truly about just stating the facts about this particular issue then you would have done your homework instead of firing off an email about something, someone you know nothing about. Basically this is your hate being voiced. Cause really what you would be saying as a Christian is, thank God someone was around to care of these children who were born to a mother who was an alcoholic with mental issues who could no longer care for her children and every day put them in danger. Remember Jeaus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Not the ones that come "Biological" strings or "Straight" relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You Pompous TURD! How DARE you write something about my sister like this! My sister IS a very loving parent to her boys and they return her love! My sister was only trying to get "visitation rights" to see the boys, THE JUDGE in the case awarded my sister full custody AFTER the biological mother's severe alcohol and mental problems came into light, a lifestyle that endangered very lives of these boys!

    Look, I may not agree with her about the "Gay" lifestyle she has chosen, but for you a "Christian" to write something like this ONLY inserting bits and pieces? Now, as Jack Webb would say on DRAGNET..."Just the facts".

    FACT: You pose yourself as a Christian but then have signs of the occult on your page (zodiac AND Lunar signs) PROVES you know nothing about "Christianity"!

    FACT: You "Christians" celebrate your savior's birthday at the wrong time of the year (a concession that the Apostle Paul gave the Romans and Greeks as Paul was more interested in a quantity of followers than quality!), read your Roman history, when was Caesar's census, better yet the weather patterns of Israel as the latter will probably be TOO hard for such a small mind as yours to research, when are sheep taken out to the fields?

    FACT: You "Christians" can't even pronounce the savior's name correctly, here's a hint dick wad, there is NO J sound in the ancient Aramaic language!

    FACT: You "Christians" don't even follow your savior's dietary lifestyle, after all he was a Jew and NEVER would have eaten pork, why do his so-called followers think they can eat whatever they want today?

    FACT: ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, what part of that don't you seem to understand? I guess theology is a "part time" hobby for you designed to make your look important and smart to your friends...if you truly have any!

    I propose a biblical debate with you in YOUR CHURCH, we'll see who comes out on top! By the way, I was educated in a private, VERY exclusive Bible college (more expensive and exclusive than Harvard OR Yale at the time, ergo better) and loved thumping "Dickheads" like yourself into the ground!

    So run to your pastor, confess your horrible sin, you weak minded fool for you sir have opened a can of "INSTANT HELL FIRE" and there's no closing the lid now!

    Better hope I don't ever get to lay hands on you (oh yes "laying of hands" is a biblical reference so don't go running to the authorities claiming I'm threatening you) for I will truly make you "see the light", as you can see I'm not "the nice one in my family", compare me more with the character "Tony Soprano" and you sir have insulted my family!

    Not Hiding, I'm here out in the open..."LET'S ROCK"!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Shouldn't you be focusing on more pending issues within your own church, such as molestation?"

    Do you have specific knowledge of molestation going on in "my church"? It's apparent, from your comments that you didn't read my comments in this thread.

    "If your article was truly about just stating the facts about this particular issue then you would have done your homework instead of firing off an email about something..."

    Who fired off an email without knowing what they were talking about? This is a blog, not an email, and it is your comments that are the "hate filled" ones. I only said 5 words regarding my opinion of the lesbian relationship, and you've taken two posts to condemn me.

    Who is the one who hates?

    "Cause really what you would be saying as a Christian is, thank God someone was around to care of these children who were born to a mother who was an alcoholic with mental issues who could no longer care for her children and every day put them in danger"

    It's good that the children are with someone caring and the like, however, that does not negate the fact that homosexuality is a sin, just like adultery, gluttony and the like.

    "Remember Jeaus loves the little children, all the children of the world."

    Chapter? Verse?

    "You Pompous TURD! How DARE you write something about my sister like this!"

    What EXACTLY did I write? Please copy/paste the offensive comments and then explain how you are the tolerant one.

    "THE JUDGE in the case awarded my sister full custody AFTER the biological mother's severe alcohol and mental problems came into light, a lifestyle that endangered very lives of these boys!

    Do you think CAPS will some how change the Law of God in relation to the homosexuality?

    "Look, I may not agree with her about the "Gay" lifestyle she has chosen, but for you a "Christian" to write something like this ONLY inserting bits and pieces?

    I copied what was relevant from the 2005 newspaper article. This blog post has been sitting here since then. My point, if you even bothered to read what I wrote, was that I felt the case could have ramifications down the road in relation to non-parental rights.

    "FACT: You pose yourself as a Christian but then have signs of the occult on your page..."

    What are you talking about? You know nothing about my religion apart from the 5 words I posted in this piece. Who is the judgmental one now? And what "signs" are you talking about?

    "FACT: You "Christians" celebrate your savior's birthday at the wrong time of the year..."

    What does this have to do with anything? I know the history of the celebration quite well, thanks. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, other than you read some liberal textbook somewhere about Christianity, but this has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Care to come out of the gutter and try to actually converse?

    "a concession that the Apostle Paul gave the Romans and Greeks as Paul was more interested in a quantity of followers than quality"

    Ok... what color is the sky in your world? There is no historical record of this, you're just making it up or you copy/pasted from some where.

    "FACT: You "Christians" can't even pronounce the savior's name correctly, here's a hint dick wad, there is NO J sound in the ancient Aramaic language!"

    Remember folks, I'm the judgmental one. ;) I know that Jesus's name, in Hebrew is Yesuah, or Joshua transliterated, however, we don't speak Hebrew. (Don't have enough phlegm!)

    "FACT: You "Christians" don't even follow your savior's dietary lifestyle, after all he was a Jew and NEVER would have eaten pork, why do his so-called followers think they can eat whatever they want today?"

    Acts 10:11-15 and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
    and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
    A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.

    I'm a Gentile Christian, we don't follow the old covenant dietary laws because we're not Jews and not bound to the ceremonial customs of Judaism which were types and shadows of that which was to come.

    "FACT: ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, what part of that don't you seem to understand?"

    If you bothered to read what I wrote in the comments here, you'd see that I not only acknowledged that but expressed it several times. Just because we've sinned indicates a need for repentance, turning away from that sin.

    I guess theology is a "part time" hobby for you designed to make your look important and smart to your friends...if you truly have any!

    Kinda like reading for you, eh?

    "I propose a biblical debate with you in YOUR CHURCH, we'll see who comes out on top!"

    Fantastic, if these are the kinds of arguments that I can expect I'm sure you'll have me under the table in no time. My church doesn't do debates though. You arrange the place, get the sound system set up, cater it and I'll be there. ;)

    By the way, I was educated in a private, VERY exclusive Bible college (more expensive and exclusive than Harvard OR Yale at the time

    You got ripped off, if this is the kind of material you learned from there. Sorry.

    "and loved thumping "Dickheads" like yourself into the ground!

    Did you learn to call people "dickheads" at bible college?

    "So run to your pastor, confess your horrible sin, you weak minded fool for you sir have opened a can of "INSTANT HELL FIRE" and there's no closing the lid now!"

    Brilliant! Do you do comedy too? Seriously, what words exactly are you so angry about?

    Better hope I don't ever get to lay hands on you (oh yes "laying of hands" is a biblical reference so don't go running to the authorities claiming I'm threatening you)

    This entire post is a threat and filled with vile and hatred, yet I'm the one accused of being a "dickhead" and the like.

    Folks like you t make it so clear for everyone else that this lifestyle is bankrupt and that the claims of "tolerance" are just bluster. You have no intention of "tolerating" anything, do you?

    "for I will truly make you "see the light", as you can see I'm not "the nice one in my family", compare me more with the character "Tony Soprano" and you sir have insulted my family!

    Not Hiding, I'm here out in the open..."LET'S ROCK"!


    Um... yah. I think you're letting your relationship color your comments and judgments.

    Please read my post again, also read my comments in this thread. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeff asked: "Tell me...just what did Jesus say about homosexuality?"

    Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    "Adultery" ... is that plain enough?

    And Jesus, speaking by Paul's pen declares:

    Romans 1:26-27

    26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And 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.

    "Vile Affections" ... is that plain enough?

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

    "Abomination" ... is that clear enough?

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  20. Church chat......
    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23764982

    ReplyDelete
  21. Church lady is always welcome. :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ah, I hit a nerve! How wonderful! :)


    Funny how your posting things that YOU want to post. Too much for ya huh? LOL.........

    ReplyDelete
  23. I believe in MODERATION. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  24. You would..... Still only posting what ya want eh? Nice...........

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, yes. It's MY blog. I post what I want. If you want to take your hate-filled speech about me to the masses you're free to make your own blog. There you can call me all the tolerant names you want without fear of me moderating them.

    Notice that most of the 'anonymous' posters have left now that they have to reveal themselves. Even you, behind your newly created pseudonym can say what you want in any vile way you wish, but when it comes to actually dealing with other human beings, the persecuted often become the persecutors.

    Finally, as I close this thread, I want to reiterate that the total, potentially objectionable content of my post consists of the following:

    "Aside from the acceptance of a perverse lifestyle as normal and the granting of custody of children to those who promote and engage in perversion..."

    Now, I still believe that homosexuality is perverse. No amount of name-calling will change my belief that men were made to be with women and vice-versa, and that it was ordained this way from the beginning but that since then men and women have sought out perverse pleasures in all sorts of ways.

    What this campaign has proven is that the truly intolerant are not those who believe in an objective standard of right and wrong, but those who hold that perversion is righteousness and declaring the opposite is reason for the most obscene sorts of attack. Like the church in San Francisco that was firebombed by "gay activists" because the pastor dared to speak against homosexuality, I expect the persecution to continue in other forms.

    But that will only prove my point, that those seeking to legitimize, legalize and normalize these sorts of relationships are not truly interested in tolerance whatsoever, they want the right to silence any opposition.

    This campaign on a 3 year old blog post with all sorts of accusations and rudeness proves that, when it comes to "homosexual-rights", what they really want are super-rights, the right to silence and destroy.

    ReplyDelete