Amazingly Bad Parenting by People who are NOT Gay

[EnemyPartyII]

No I do not but single parents happens. Gay "parents" should never happen. In fact, people shouldn't even be gay!

Why not?

Have you got any sort of, you know, EVIDENCE to back up your ridiculous claim that

homosexual parents are always worse parents than heterosexual parents

 

[Ave Maria]

Why not?

Have you got any sort of, you know, EVIDENCE to back up your ridiculous claim that

No but I do have God's Word that states that families are to consist of a mother and a father, not two people of the same sex!

 

[Catholicon]

No but I do have God's Word that states that families are to consist of a mother and a father, not two people of the same sex!

Where does GOD say that?

 

[Akathist]

No but I do have God's Word that states that families are to consist of a mother and a father, not two people of the same sex!

I do not disagree with your position. But, if you site evidence from God's word that would be better then just making these statements as you are. The best way to debate is to state something and then provide evidence to back up what you state.

 

[Ohioprof]

No but I do have God's Word that states that families are to consist of a mother and a father, not two people of the same sex!

You have a book that you believe is God's word, and you have your interpretations of what the words in the book mean. You have your beliefs, and that's all.

 

[Ohioprof]

I do not disagree with your position. But, if you site evidence from God's word that would be better then just making these statements as you are. The best way to debate is to state something and then provide evidence to back up what you state.

I do not regard the Bible as evidence of what God thinks. I regard the Bible as evidence of what some people who lived long ago thought, and that's all.

 

[Ohioprof]

What is your point ChaliceThunder? Parents of both sexual orientations can be horrible parents but homosexual parents are always worse parents than heterosexual parents in general. Why is that? Because God did not design the family to have two parents of the same sex. Yes, you read what I said right. The family is not designed to have two parents of the same sex. It is disgusting that homosexual "parents" can raise children in this nation and in any nation. It should be outlawed!

This is a terribly offensive post to those of us who are parents and who happen to be gay. I am glad that someone else reported this post, because it is a personal attack on gay people who are parents.

How dare you claim that we are worse parents? That's prejudice beyond doubt. You are pre-judging us as parents because we are gay, and you happen to dislike gay people for some reason.

 

[Ohioprof]

No I do not but single parents happens. Gay "parents" should never happen. In fact, people shouldn't even be gay!

Well, some of us ARE gay. God made us who we are. You may not like it, but we are not going to disappear just because you don't like us.

 

[Catholicon]

Jesus rescinded the "laws" in Leviticus, so they no longer apply. We have no reason to believe Paul's attitude was nothing more than Levitical homophobia, so his opinion of homosexuality is also invalid.

Jesus taught us to love each other and tolerate our differences, he said nothing about same-sex relationships being a sin.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No but I do have God's Word that states that families are to consist of a mother and a father, not two people of the same sex!

Why are you the only person on the planet with God's word on that? It certainly doesn't say that in the Bible!

 

[savedandhappy1]

Jesus rescinded the "laws" in Leviticus, so they no longer apply. We have no reason to believe Paul's attitude was nothing more than Levitical homophobia, so his opinion of homosexuality is also invalid.

Jesus taught us to love each other and tolerate our differences, he said nothing about same-sex relationships being a sin.

Rev. 2:18-23
18 "To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.
22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.
23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Love He taught, this is true, but tolerence he didn't. In fact He held it against the church of Thyatira, as we see in Rev. 2.

Could you show me the scriptures that say Jesus rescinded the "laws" in Leviticus, because my Bible says He came to fulfill the law not to rescind them.

If we want to talk about the laws that are related to food, we see those laws have been rescinded, but no where in the NT does it rescinded the moral laws.

Almost have to laugh, one minute we are told Paul couldn't understand a true loving relationship between SSA's in his day. Which hasn't been explained as to why he couldn't, and why a loving relationship back then would be different than today. Then we are told he is homophobic, you all need to make up your minds.

Biblical Scholars realize that the same Jesus who said “Do not judge or you too will be judged” (Matt. 7:1) also commanded, “Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). In order to make a “right judgment,” believers must judge. The reason this can seem confusing is that there are two meanings of judge. One means to condemn, the other means to evaluate.


While we are forbidden to condemn (that’s God’s job alone), we are required to evaluate. Without “judging” in this context, we’d be unable to discern the difference between the atrocities committed by Adolph Hitler and the humanitarian efforts conducted by Mother Teresa. Or Jesus’ sacrificial death and Judas’ suicidal hanging. But somehow, we have gotten the idea that loving someone means never evaluating or criticizing their actions.

Speaking the truth in love—now that’s real love. It’s how Christ dealt with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). He forgave her and told her to leave her life of sin. He didn’t say, “I’m okay. You’re okay. It’s just an alternate lifestyle.” But many ignore God’s desire for us to lovingly confront sin. They instead pride themselves on being “open-minded,” “tolerant” and “respectful” of immorality. This raises the question, “How long will it take some to go from respecting sin to experimenting with it?”
“Tolerance” and “love” are two very different things—a truth people seem to have trouble understanding. We’re called to love all men in the name of Jesus, not ignore their sins in the name of diversity and tolerence. Sin is a big deal to God. So much so that He allowed Jesus to die on a cruel cross to rescue us from its grip. Glossing over sin/evil—whether our own or someone elses—is to say in essence, “What you did is really of little value to me. God, my view of sin is different from yours, and frankly I’m not that disturbed by it.” Though it is of utmost importance that people learn to reach out in love to everyone, it is equally vital that they not take this apathetic, tolerant approach to sin.

Christian author and speaker Josh McDowell reminds followers of Christ that,

We must humbly pursue truth. It may be difficult to speak the truth in today's climate, but Jesus said,

"The truth will set you free."
​

Pursuing truth in this context means countering the new doctrine of tolerance. It means teaching our children to embrace all people, but not all beliefs. It means showing them how to listen to and learn from all people without necessarily agreeing with them. It means helping them courageously but humbly speak the truth, even if it makes them the object of scorn or hatred.
We must always remember, however, that when the apostle Peter told us,

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have," he added, "But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).
​

We must aggressively practice love. Everyone loves love, it seems, but few recognize how incompatible love is with the new tolerance. Tolerance simply avoids offending someone; we must help our children live in love, which actively seeks to promote the good of another person.
Tolerance says, "You must approve of what I do."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will love you, even when your behavior offends me."
Tolerance says, "You must agree with me."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will tell you the truth, because I am convinced 'the truth will set you free.' "
Tolerance says, "You must allow me to have my way."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will plead with you to follow the right way, because I believe you are worth the risk."
Tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. Tolerance glorifies division; love seeks unity. Tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything.
I believe the dreadful potential of the new tolerance can be averted, but only with a renewed commitment to truth, justice and love. And, as it happens, that powerful trio of virtues can do more than prevent disaster; it can bring about true community and culture in the midst of diversity and disagreement.
​

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/tolerance.html

​

 

[Ohioprof]

Rev. 2:18-23
18 "To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.
22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.
23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Love He taught, this is true, but tolerence he didn't. In fact He held it against the church of Thyatira, as we see in Rev. 2.

Could you show me the scriptures that say Jesus rescinded the "laws" in Leviticus, because my Bible says He came to fulfill the law not to rescind them.

If we want to talk about the laws that are related to food, we see those laws have been rescinded, but no where in the NT does it rescinded the moral laws.

Almost have to laugh, one minute we are told Paul couldn't understand a true loving relationship between SSA's in his day. Which hasn't been explained as to why he couldn't, and why a loving relationship back then would be different than today. Then we are told he is homophobic, you all need to make up your minds.

Biblical Scholars realize that the same Jesus who said “Do not judge or you too will be judged” (Matt. 7:1) also commanded, “Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). In order to make a “right judgment,” believers must judge. The reason this can seem confusing is that there are two meanings of judge. One means to condemn, the other means to evaluate.


While we are forbidden to condemn (that’s God’s job alone), we are required to evaluate. Without “judging” in this context, we’d be unable to discern the difference between the atrocities committed by Adolph Hitler and the humanitarian efforts conducted by Mother Teresa. Or Jesus’ sacrificial death and Judas’ suicidal hanging. But somehow, we have gotten the idea that loving someone means never evaluating or criticizing their actions.

Speaking the truth in love—now that’s real love. It’s how Christ dealt with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). He forgave her and told her to leave her life of sin. He didn’t say, “I’m okay. You’re okay. It’s just an alternate lifestyle.” But many ignore God’s desire for us to lovingly confront sin. They instead pride themselves on being “open-minded,” “tolerant” and “respectful” of immorality. This raises the question, “How long will it take some to go from respecting sin to experimenting with it?”
“Tolerance” and “love” are two very different things—a truth people seem to have trouble understanding. We’re called to love all men in the name of Jesus, not ignore their sins in the name of diversity and tolerence. Sin is a big deal to God. So much so that He allowed Jesus to die on a cruel cross to rescue us from its grip. Glossing over sin/evil—whether our own or someone elses—is to say in essence, “What you did is really of little value to me. God, my view of sin is different from yours, and frankly I’m not that disturbed by it.” Though it is of utmost importance that people learn to reach out in love to everyone, it is equally vital that they not take this apathetic, tolerant approach to sin.

Christian author and speaker Josh McDowell reminds followers of Christ that,

We must humbly pursue truth. It may be difficult to speak the truth in today's climate, but Jesus said,

"The truth will set you free."
​

Pursuing truth in this context means countering the new doctrine of tolerance. It means teaching our children to embrace all people, but not all beliefs. It means showing them how to listen to and learn from all people without necessarily agreeing with them. It means helping them courageously but humbly speak the truth, even if it makes them the object of scorn or hatred.
We must always remember, however, that when the apostle Peter told us,

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have," he added, "But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).
​

We must aggressively practice love. Everyone loves love, it seems, but few recognize how incompatible love is with the new tolerance. Tolerance simply avoids offending someone; we must help our children live in love, which actively seeks to promote the good of another person.
Tolerance says, "You must approve of what I do."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will love you, even when your behavior offends me."
Tolerance says, "You must agree with me."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will tell you the truth, because I am convinced 'the truth will set you free.' "
Tolerance says, "You must allow me to have my way."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will plead with you to follow the right way, because I believe you are worth the risk."
Tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. Tolerance glorifies division; love seeks unity. Tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything.
I believe the dreadful potential of the new tolerance can be averted, but only with a renewed commitment to truth, justice and love. And, as it happens, that powerful trio of virtues can do more than prevent disaster; it can bring about true community and culture in the midst of diversity and disagreement.
​

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/tolerance.html

​

I disagree with these arguments against acceptance of gay people. The arguments against tolerance of people who are different seem entirely incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

I think we Christians need to go beyond mere tolerance to the acceptance and welcoming of gay people as we are. I think that the various Christian churches, with much difficulty and disagreement, are slowly turning in this direction.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I disagree with these arguments against acceptance of gay people. The arguments against tolerance of people who are different seem entirely incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

I think we Christians need to go beyond mere tolerance to the acceptance and welcoming of gay people as we are. I think that the various Christian churches, with much difficulty and disagreement, are slowly turning in this direction.

As stated in the post it is the new definition of tolerance that is not part of the teachings of Jesus.

Show me one place where Jesus healed and forgave someone and also said I don't agree with what you are doing but I love you so much that I will overlook it?

I see where He said time and again go and sin no more, not carry on in what you are doing. We are made new in Him, not remaining the same as we were before salvation.

By the way what teachings of Jesus are you referring to since you don't believe the Bible?

Another question would be, you quote that we are to love God and our neighbors, which again is a quote from the Bible you don't believe in. This makes things kind of confusing, to me, to say the least.

 

[Ohioprof]

As stated in the post it is the new definition of tolerance that is not part of the teachings of Jesus.

Show me one place where Jesus healed and forgave someone and also said I don't agree with what you are doing but I love you so much that I will overlook it?

I see where He said time and again go and sin no more, not carry on in what you are doing. We are made new in Him, not remaining the same as we were before salvation.

By the way what teachings of Jesus are you referring to since you don't believe the Bible?

Another question would be, you quote that we are to love God and our neighbors, which again is a quote from the Bible you don't believe in. This makes things kind of confusing, to me, to say the least.

Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages or about gay people. Ever. So to claim that he would accept our alleged "sin" but overlook it is to assume that Jesus believed same-sex love to be a "sin," when in fact he never said anything of the kind. You are projecting your own beliefs about gay people onto Jesus.

I have said that I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. I have also said that parts of the Bible are historically accurate and parts of the Bible are not. Some of the statements attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, meaning the 4 Gospels that are included in the Bible, he probably did say and some of them he almost certainly did not say. Most of what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John he probably never said. Jesus probably never claimed to be the Messiah, and he probably never said, "I am the way and the truth and the life...." That was almost certainly made up by later followers of Jesus.

Scholars have been working to try to determine what statements attributed to Jesus in the 4 Gospels in the Bible and in other Gospels not included in the Bible are what Jesus actually said. They are not certain of what Jesus actually said, but they have a pretty good idea.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages or about gay people. Ever. So to claim that he would accept our alleged "sin" but overlook it is to assume that Jesus believed same-sex love to be a "sin," when in fact he never said anything of the kind. You are projecting your own beliefs about gay people onto Jesus.

Jesus never spoke of several things that are sins, (incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, inappropriate contentography, pedophilia, etc.) so who is putting whose beliefs where? Does the fact that Jesus never spoke of certain sins mean that they’re unimportant, or does that just simply mean He didn’t need to because it was such an obvious given?

I have said that I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. I have also said that parts of the Bible are historically accurate and parts of the Bible are not. Some of the statements attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, meaning the 4 Gospels that are included in the Bible, he probably did say and some of them he almost certainly did not say. Most of what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John he probably never said. Jesus probably never claimed to be the Messiah, and he probably never said, "I am the way and the truth and the life...." That was almost certainly made up by later followers of Jesus.

Each day I keep thinking that nothing else can surprise me when it comes to the rapid changing of what is right or wrong, good or bad, etc. Yet, everyday someone says something that they think is logical, and who can't even see how it is changing the Jesus the Bible speaks of which we are told will happen in the end days.

The Bible you only believe parts of tells how people will say Jesus is over here or over there, and to not believe them. Yet, we have so called bible scholars saying the Jesus of the Bible isn't really who Jesus is. They have decided they know more than those who lived it, and can keep things in better context then those who not only lived it, but put it down for all of us to know, by inspiration of God.

So sad to see Jesus made over into what some want Him to be, and all the lies the father of lies continues to tell to believing ears just like Eve.

You surely will not die. He wouldn't kill you. You will be a god if you eat. He won't send anyone to hell. He made us this way so we are blessed.

Yeah they are finding that the Bible is wrong, and they are right, and so many can't see the deceiving hand of satan. Oh thats right, he isn't real either is he?

Scholars have been working to try to determine what statements attributed to Jesus in the 4 Gospels in the Bible and in other Gospels not included in the Bible are what Jesus actually said. They are not certain of what Jesus actually said, but they have a pretty good idea.

So someone living now is to be believed over those who were there when the events were happening. Yep that makes sense.

Paul speaks of males with males committing indecent acts; he does not say men with boys, a common claim of the revisionists, that this is only about pederasty. This is a mutual, reciprocal relationship, for it speaks of their burning with desire toward one another. Hence, all ideas of mere pederasty, gang rape, or cultural ritual activity are refuted by Paul himself. The men of whom Paul speaks have sexual desires for other men. Thirdly the phrase ‘the natural use’ of the male or female likewise shows that Paul is not limiting his comments to pederasty, as assumed by revisionists; ‘natural use’ can only refer to normal, adult heterosexual behavior which is part of God’s creative purpose.

He who has ears let him hear.

 

[Catholicon]

Jesus never spoke of several things that are sins, (incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, inappropriate contentography, pedophilia, etc.) so who is putting whose beliefs where? Does the fact that Jesus never spoke of certain sins mean that they’re unimportant, or does that just simply mean He didn’t need to because it was such an obvious given?

Jesus never spoke about homosexuality because it's "such an obvious given" that same-sex love is LOVE, which is what Jesus was all about.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Jesus never spoke about homosexuality because it's "such an obvious given" that same-sex love is LOVE, which is what Jesus was all about.

There is, I believe, 3 types of love mentioned in the Bible, maybe you could study them, and then you would see what Jesus is all about when He is talking/teaching about love.

You are mixing the types of love up and trying to make them one. I will try and get you some information on the differences of the meanings of love.

P.S.
The Greek language in which the New Testament was written uses several words translated "love." The first two listed below are found in the New Testament. Understanding their meanings helps us better comprehend God's expectations of us.
Agapao (verb) is a special word representing the divine love of God toward His Son, human beings in general and believers. It is also used to depict the outwardly focused love God expects believers to have for one another. Agapao (including its noun form, agape) is "the characteristic word of Christianity, and since the Spirit of revelation has used it to express ideas previously unknown, inquiry into its use, whether in Greek literature or in the Septuagint, throws but little light upon its distinctive meaning in the N[ew] T[estament] . . ."
This special type of Christian love, "whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered" (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, "Love").
Reflecting the fact that human marriage is modeled after the divine relationship between Christ and the Church, husbands are told to love their wives with this kind of outgoing, selfless love (<A href="http://www.ucgstp.org/htmlbible2/eph005.htm#V25" target=_blank>Ephesians 5:25,<A href="http://www.ucgstp.org/htmlbible2/eph005.htm#V31" target=_blank>31-32).
This kind of love is perhaps best expressed in Jesus Christ's statement in <A href="http://www.ucgstp.org/htmlbible2/joh015.htm#V13" target=_blank>John 15:13, "Greater love [agape] has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends." Jesus Himself perfectly exemplified this kind of love throughout His lifetime, continually giving of Himself and His time and energies to serve others and ultimately offering up His life as a sacrifice for all of humanity. This is the kind of love God wants each of us to exemplify in our lives and particularly in our marriages.
Phileo (verb) means "'to have ardent affection and feeling'&#8212;a type of impulsive love" (Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, "Love"). This is the natural, human type of love and affection that we have for a friend and is often defined as "brotherly love."
In <A href="http://www.ucgstp.org/htmlbible2/joh021.htm#V15" target=_blank>John 21:15-16, Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him with the agapao type of love and Peter responded that he had the normal human phileo type of love for Him. Later, after receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter would be able to genuinely demonstrate agapao-type godly love, serving others throughout his lifetime and making the ultimate sacrifice in martyrdom.
Eros (noun) refers to sexual, erotic love or desire.
True love, as explained in the Bible, isn't focused on oneself and one's feelings or emotions, but is instead outwardly focused on others&#8212;wanting to best serve and care for them. True love is beautifully described in <A href="http://www.ucgstp.org/htmlbible2/1co013.htm#V4" target=_blank>1 Corinthians 13:4-8: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails" (NIV).

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Jesus never spoke about homosexuality because it's "such an obvious given" that same-sex love is LOVE, which is what Jesus was all about.

same-sex love is not the same thing as same-sex sex. I have same-sex love for many people, but I don't have sex with them.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I could find a thousand instances of that.

I bet there aren't very many news stories about abusive gay couples.

Because it is not common for gays to have children in their custody.

Regardless, you can have good and bad heterosexual parents, but due to the objectivley sinful nature of homosexuality- anytime homosexuals have custody of a child it is ipso facto abuse.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

same-sex love is not the same thing as same-sex sex. I have same-sex love for many people, but I don't have sex with them.

how about same sex romantic love?