Donald Trump has said on more than one occasion that his "favorite" book is the Bible. He has been married three times, that’s twice remarried. Here’s how his “favorite” book defines remarriage:
-Mark 10:11 -- Jesus: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."
-Luke 16:18 -- Jesus: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery"
-Matthew 19:9 -- Jesus: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
---
For the record, “traditional marriage” is code speak for straight love being superior to gay love. CNN interview on June 28, 2015:
JAKE TAPPER Let’s talk about same-sex marriage. You said a few years ago that you were evolving on the issue, where are you? HETEROSUPREMACIST UNREPENTANT ADULTERER DONALD TRUMP (according to his own beliefs): I’m for traditional marriage, it is changing rapidly. TAPPER: But what do you say to a lesbian who’s married or a gay man who’s married who says ‘Donald Trump, what’s traditional about being married three times?’ TRUMP: Well, they have a very good point, but you know, I’ve been a very hard working person, actually I have a great marriage, I have a great wife now and my two wives were very good and I don’t blame them, but I was working twenty two hours a day… TAPPER: I’m not asking you to explain your divorces. TRUMP: I blame myself because my business was so powerful for me… TAPPER: But what do you say to a lesbian or a gay man who are married? TRUMP: I really don’t say anything, I’m just for traditional marriage.
As with presidential candidate Ben Carson, they say his appeal is that he is not part of the political process, but I don’t believe for a second that the Bible is his “favorite” Book, nor do I think he really cares whether gay couples can legally wed or not (he must have gay friends), but he has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s a misogynist and a racist (“Mexicans are rapists and murderers). It is my belief that he’s just playing to the amoral base of the Republican party, but we can now add heterosupremacist to his list of themed hate speech.
A federal bill reintroduced this week would place children and their need for a mother and a father at the mercy of an agenda to promote gay and lesbian couples.
Implying that the only reason gay couples adopt children is so that the kids can be used as props to “normalize” their own relationship in the eyes of the public.
If passed, the bill would make it illegal for states that give priority to married mother and father couples for foster care and adoption placement, to receive federal funds for the purpose. Read about it here.
Yep. From the link:
The bill would make it illegal for any entity involved with adoption or foster care placement that receives federal funding to discriminate in its placement decisions based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. States whose statutes or policies conflict with the laws would need to change those policies or risk losing federal adoption funds.
And voilà, “big government” finds a family, and “small government” becomes an orphan.
There's some interesting stuff in section 2 of the bill that you may want to check out:
(4) As of 2007, gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents were raising 4 percent of all adopted children and fostering for 3 percent of all foster children. A report from the Evan B. Donaldson Institute found that an additional 2,000,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are interested in adoption.
(5) According to the Urban Institute, same-sex couples raising adopted children tend to be older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. Studies confirm that children with same-sex parents have the same advantages and same expectations for health, social and psychological adjustment, and development as children whose parents are heterosexual.
Unlike FOTF's disingenuous show of concern for the wefare of foster kids, This bill really is about improving their lives. --- Extrapolating from the ‘bigotry should be government sanctioned' stance, Ms. Jenny decries this potential LGBT measure of equality as a travesty, managing to take swipes at gay marriage along the way:
1) …State policies favoring the most stable family structure for orphaned children would necessarily be thrown out in order to comply with the federal law. 2) …faith-based foster care and adoption organizations … [will] lose business with the state. 3) People of sincere religious faith will marginalized… 4) …Catholic Charities in D.C. had to drop its foster care services when the city council redefined marriage. 5) …Catholic Charities of Boston was run out of that state, too—just after same-sex marriage became law.
And apparently it’s all our fault.
~The Sociopath Next Door, p59:
Using fear-based propaganda to amplify a destructive ideology, such a leader can bring the members of a frightened society to see the its as the sole impediment to the good life, for themselves and maybe even for humanity as a whole, and the conflict as and epic battle between good and evil. Once these beliefs have been disseminated, crushing the its without pity or conscience can, with chilling ease, become and incontrovertible mandate.
And if there’s one thing the anti-gay industry knows how to do best, it’s how to portray a gay as an it. Gays are promiscuous, disease ridden, drug addicted, child molesters, to name just a few of the dehumanizing terms they use to turn us into its.
Also, did you know that CHILDREN NEED A MOTHER AND A FATHER!!!!
Six out of nine paragraphs include some combination of the words “mother” and “father,” the rest implied it:
1) need for a mother and a father 2) married mother and father 3) both a mother and a father 4) mother-father homes 5) a mother and a father. 6) need a mother and a father, and the best way to make that happen is still marriage.
~~~~
To use Jenny’s words; “It’s hard to know where to begin with all that is wrong with this.”
1)Let's start with the Gay Bashing used to decry LGBT adoptions:
a) …children…at the mercy of an agenda to promote gay and lesbian couples.
b) We all know that difficult situations arise and family policy should address those situations, but it shouldn’t create them.
c) The “family”… …[is] more specific than two adults—or the current fad in social engineering.
2)Faith based adoption agencies will be forced to shut down.
a) According to the article you linked to, That's only if they can't pay their own discriminatory way.
b) If an organization wants to discriminate against a certain group, then I think it's only ethical to not receive their tax dollars in doing so.
Why should discriminatory agencies be allowed to receive federal funding that includes a portion of the tax dollars of LGBT citizens and their supporters? Otherwise it's thievery.
c) Being organizations of faith, shouldn’t this be where your “faith” kicks in?
d) And finally, If a child-placement service---especially a faith based one---is willing to sacrifice the welfare of the many in order to starve the few, I think it’s fair to question the integrity of that organization. --- This was an interesting article in regard to how Catholic Charities of Boston was “run out of that state”:
Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction [1/55th] of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
3)“Children need a Mother and a Father”
OMG, by far the most irritating of all.
a) A motherload of a lie. If that was their concern they’d be fundraising to make divorce illegal.
5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Yet man separates “one flesh” all the time. But who cares what the Bible says, right, FOTF?
b) Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better for a child to live in an abusive home with “a mother and a father,” than to live in a same-gender parented household that was safe?
c) The studies that FOTF points to that prove the power of the mom and dad, are too often (if not always), irrelevant and/or misleading in some way, but that’s whole ‘nother can of worms.
d) Placing so much emphasis on the importance of gender cheapens this theoretical “mother and father” down to an “Any married p and v will do” position.
~The Sociopath Next Door, p109:
When deciding whom to trust, bear in mind that the combination of consistently bad or egregiously inadequate behavior with frequent plays for your pity is as close to a warning mark on a conscienceless person’s forehead as you will ever be given.
Pity the “victims” of gay adoption, and then pity us, and our loss of yet another government subsidized expression of faith based hate religious freedom.
Boo. Hoo. --- The results of the studies on the welfare of kids in foster care are appalling. That’s a long article, you can get a sense of it here:
Now, consider a study released on April 7, 2005 by a large, Washington State-based foster-care provider, Casey Family Programs, and Harvard Medical School. The study used case records and interviews to assess the status of young adult “alumni” of foster care.
When compared to adults of the same age and ethnic background who did not endure foster care:
· Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be “doing well.” Thus, foster care failed for 80 percent. · They have double the rate of mental illness. · Their rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was double the rate for Iraq War veterans. · The former foster children were three times more likely to be living in poverty – and fifteen times less likely to have finished college. · And nearly one-third of the alumni reported that they had been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. --- Why, then, do we continue to pour billions of dollars into a system which fails 80 percent of the time and actually abuses at least one-third of those forced into it?
We do it because, over 150 years, we’ve built up a huge, powerful network of foster-care “providers” – “a foster care-industrial complex” with an enormous vested interest in perpetuating the status quo.
If you click on one link in this article, that’s the one. It offers a variety of solutions to fix the broken foster-care system, focusing mainly on prevention. This is where Focus on the Family’s priorities should lie--ON THE FAMILY.
Focus on the Family has an annual budget of over 100 million dollars and boasts of a 38 state network of “Fully Associated Family Policy Councils.” So far, twenty-nine states have been successful in their bid to bash gay relationships by legal decree.
They’ve raised millions upon millions upon millions through campaigns of lies and deception. The sociopaths at the top make them up, and their nonthinking followers repeat them.
Bush’s trillion dollar deficit, a-okay. An unnecessary war that cost the lives of tens of thousands (at least), to the tune of another trillion, a-okay. Children languishing in foster care, children in foster care unnecessarily, families that can’t make ends meet--also, a-okay.
But two gay people in love who want to wed? That, classily enough, opens up the floodgates. Wallets open, volunteers appear, press releases claiming victimhood are “rushed” out, and church networking explodes in the effort to prevent any chance of it.
However, when it comes to raising funds for actual families in need, Focus and their 38 state network of "family" groups are MIA.
Rosie O’Donnell’s movie, America -Resources and disturbing facts section.
The sociopath next door-Amazon. -This book changed my life. It really helped me to better understand the atrocious behavior of the anti-gay industry’s talking heads and their non-thinking flocks.
The larger body of Presbyterian USA is trying to remove language from the Book of Order that currently prevents active homosexuals from becoming ordained. I am all for the removal of the language and here's why: homosexuality is not a moral issue. Evidence supports that sexuality is influenced more by biology than anything else. Biology trumps the Bible, in my opinion. The people who wrote the Christian Bible had no idea of genetics. They didn't even know the earth was round. And if people today still insist on dragging up scripture to support their hate inspired-views, then nobody who is divorced should be ordained, either. Jesus was pretty clear that divorce and remarriage was tantamount to adultery - and the penalty for adultery then was death by stoning. If everyone took THAT seriously then half the Presbyterian church would be stoning the other half to death at any given moment and place.
(You can read the rest of it here, as well as from the link above.)
So, shall we let the stoning begin, or shall we continue this "debate?"
Remember, the Bible even commands it: Leviticus 20:10: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Emproph:Mark 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
If marriage is God made, and divorce is man made, how is it even possible to “repent” of divorce?
Wouldn’t that require repenting of God’s Will itself? -- But that wasn't even my point - as divorce and the adultery-of-remarriage are two completely separate things.
As such, my issue had nothing to do with Joe Dallas, nor his divorce (due to his adultery). My issue was, and is, with your, GCMW’s, apparent approval of adulterous remarriage - as per the Bible:
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery…"
Which brings us back to my original question in regard to this thread;
"Why would it bother you that Soulforce spreads false doctrine about Scripture, when you yourselves list divorced and remarried unrepentant adulterer Joe Dallas as a resource?"
EVEN IF he could “repent” of his specifically-adulterous divorce, how do you find it possible for him to repent of his Scripturally-adulterous remarriage?
Perhaps you have an explanation, but my question is then in regard to why you list him as a resource without offering that explanation.
By listing Joe Dallas as a resource, without such a clarification, you come across as endorsing unrepentant adultery -- and thus, supportive of the eternal damnation of those who are divorced and remarried, including that of Joe Dallas.
Point being, if you think of unrepentant adulterers as being scripturally sound, why should anyone take you sincerely when you say that Soulforce “spreads false doctrine about Scripture” ?
