I know it is more comfortable for you to ignore me than respond so I do not expect a reply to this message. I do however want you to read these links below. As you can see heterosexual child prostitution by biological parents takes place quite often.
By the way you are not supporting your position by ignoring me. You are in fact showing how untenable your argument is by now offering some sort of defense of it.
I love how you literally had to look on the other side of the world to find a story to support your bigotry.
A question for Ken....if a man in his late twenties/early thirties ordered a young boy in a loincloth to spend the night with him would that be an act of a pedophile and/or a sin?
Ken you have repeatedly ignored me, the word of Jesus Christ, the will of God, and blatant truth in order to preach division and hate. I would not want you around my children either and I certainly would not want anyone to think your view of Christianity is in any way in line with the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
You can repeat falsehoods and lies Until the end of time but that will never change them into truths nor will deceit and darkness such as you offer ever prevail over the light and love of The Lord Our God. You can ignore me if you wish but to ignore the word of God is something I would suspect you undertake with great danger to your soul.
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
James 1:26 ESV
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
Read and heed yourself ken. Now we see the truth that Ken here is of the opinion that he knows the word of god, in his own words, better than nearly 100% of theologians and pastors. I suspect the lion of Judah would love to munch on the tasty soul of someone like Ken
God wanted spiritual fruits not religious nuts. Oh and ken the cows have indeed come home and I have yet to hear you respond to me.
Ken please read Mathew 7:1
You are criticizing others for not heeding scripture yet here you are blatantly ignoring the teachings of the god you claim to cherish. You are engaging in the same sort of behavior you chastise others for. I am seriously beginning to think that you have no desire to participate in a meaningful discussion and are just trolling this site.
I must admit I am confused by your response. If you had the time to spout out those 5 very long paragraphs why didn't you just take that time to have an actual debate rather than invest it in so much deflection?
Just getting up? I think you missed church Mr!
Ken...I would wager you are guilty of exactly what you just accused that poster of. Just how many homosexuals do you know and maintain social relationships with?
I would also invite you to respond to the original rebuttal I made of your post; I didn't see you actually address all of my points and in a moderated debate you would have be sanctioned points by the moderator for it.
Rebuttal to Exhibit 4: Various studies conducted by organizations have repeatedly shown that gay men are not any more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.
"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children" - Gregrory M. Herek professor of psychology at UC Davis.
Even the Southern Poverty Law Center's own website supports the viewpoint that gay people are not responsible for the acts you accuse them of. In fact a professional in the mental health field will tell you that pedophiles are repulsed by adults of either sex and will molest children of any sex.
Exhibit 5 is irrelevant to this discussion and is nothing more than an example of trying to provoke an emotional response to compensate for a lack of science to support your position so I see no need to offer rebuttal.
In closing I would remind you of a few things you may have pushed out of your heart to make room for the hate which resides in it.
Mathew 7:1 (NIV) Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of you own eye, and then you will clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye.
I would suggest the plank in your eye is the outright blasphemy against God's word that you are committing when you sit in judgment of anyone despite being specifically told by Christ not to do so.
Mathew 22:1 Render unto Caeser that which is Caesars. Let us not forget that Christ himself said "My kingdom is not of this world" and that the laws of man should be obeyed. The majority of our nation supports some sort of same sex unions so to ignore that majority is to ignore another teaching of Christ.
Rebuttal of Exhibit 1: A sovereign nation has the right to legislate according to the will of the majority as long as minority rights are preserved. In our sovereign nation the majority of citizens support same sex marriage as evidenced by Gallop polls and various social media statistics. With that being said it would seem that the will of We The People, in this our sovereign nation which we have fought and died to protect, is in direct opposition to your viewpoint. This makes you the minority and as such your viewpoint, were it to be applied at a national level, would be more akin to a fascist tyranny of the minority rather than a true representation of the Founders intent for our great Republic.
Rebuttal of Exhibit 2: There can be no disputing that HIV/AIDS impacts all of humanity gay or straight. The virus that causes this disease does not discriminate and can infect any person regardless of age, gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or any other limiting factor. In this country the infection rate is high among homosexuals but let us not forget that across the world HIV/AIDS infects far more heterosexual people than homosexual people as evidenced by the World Health Organization and The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. I would think that it is highly illogical to assert that a group with a leading infection rate here represents the world as a whole. One might infer from your position that you have the belief that any group primarily afflicted by a disease is somehow undeserving of care so I would ask you if you feel that African Americans should not be entitled to treatment for heart disease since they are at a greater risk than any other group in our country and tend to have a higher incident of heart disease for it.
Rebuttal to exhibit 3: Let us not also forget that far more financial resources are directed to treat obesity in America than HIV/AIDS consumes. One third of adults in America are obese and $147 billion dollars were spent treating this condition. (per the CDC website)
People chose to put food in their mouth when they are obese; sexuality has been shown to be a product of biology (as it exists across the animal kingdom and not just in Humanity) so should the obese be denied coverage for their choice? Scientific research, while not able to pinpoint an exact cause, clearly shows that sexual orientation is rooted in biological/environmental factors and that choice is not a factor in most people's sexuality.
I am intrigued by the responses my fellow republicans have given in response to this ordinance. The continued insistence on focusing on the homosexual portion of this ordinance seems to ignore that 90% of the benefits will be extended to heterosexual domestic partnerships. One out of ten people are homosexual so in focusing on 10% of the people that will get benefits you are neglecting the 90% of heterosexual couples and that to me seems unfair to those heterosexual couples.
I'm seeing a lot of theological reasons for this ordinance to be defeated; less we forget we live in a nation where the powers of government are separate from any dogma or theology. I'm seeing graphic examples of homosexual behavior on this page; examples which ignore the ability of heterosexual couples to engage in even more perverse and outlandish sexual behavior. "Two dogs in a bathtub" immediately comes to mind (it is so disgusting that I will not elaborate on the details of this position) and this is a sexual position exclusively only available to heterosexual couples. Let us not forget that heterosexual sex is also the root cause of every single abortion ever performed in this country; and the sex that produces those aborted children is just as likely to spread an STD as homosexual sex is.
This bill does not create a new definition of marriage nor does it counteract any part of existing law. Chattanooga has simply said that if two people, gay or straight, are living together in a committed relationship that those two people should have access to benefits otherwise accorded only to married couples. Marriage was defended and defined by the constitutional amendment; now that an ordinance has been passed, which clearly adheres to the requirement of the separation of church and state a predictable backlash has occurred from those that wish to ignore the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I for one am very happy that this ordinance will go to a vote; and after it is approved those that wish to ignore the Constitution will be forced to be silent by the will of We The People.
I would also add that I am shocked and dismayed at my fellow republicans for attempting to remove from law a highly effective way to keep people out of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) insurance exchanges. Under this ordinance the employees will be responsible for paying the health premiums while under the ACA we the taxpaying citizens will be responsible for a higher premium.
I openly invite anyone to offer a response without reference to theology or dogma, without reference to sexual acts that they may find abhorrent while being capable of being guilty of much worse, and without insulting or otherwise demeaning attacks on my character. In other words I invite you to engage in a polite, logical, and orderly debate about this subject without appealing to people's emotions and otherwise using tactics similar to Moms Demand Action in their quest for gun control.