# And That Slippery Slope They Said Didn't Exist...



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

Well, here it is. Legalized pedophilia is next.


*Woman plans to marry her father after two years of dating*


 		Published January 17, 2015





	 		A teenager has revealed in an interview that she plans to marry her father and have children after dating for two years.


  The unnamed 18-year-old revealed in an interview with New York  Magazine her romantic relationship of almost two years with her  biological father after being estranged from him for 12 years.


  In the interview, the girl also said the two also plan on having children.
  The teenager said her father reached out to her on Facebook when she  was in high school and soon after, she went to stay with him for a  week. 
  After the week together, the 18-year-old said they had sex and then started dating.


  "Everyone on my mom’s side of the family sees us as father and  daughter," she told the magazine. "Those who know that he’s my dad, and  that we are engaged, include my father’s parents (they can see we are  happy together and they can’t wait for us to have babies — they treat us  just like any other couple), the woman we live with, and my best  friend."
  After the wedding, the woman says they plan to move to New Jersey where adult incest is legal.


*Click for more from New York Magazine.*


----------



## MizzBFly (Jan 23, 2015)

after the first line I had to take a deep breathe..OMG and write this..Im not ready to read the rest but here I go


----------



## MizzBFly (Jan 23, 2015)

the father is a sick bastard!!  there's a special place in hell for him...
just he wait..hahaha!!


----------



## kikigirl (Jan 23, 2015)

Adult incest is legal in NJ? Oh my...
The father's family approves??? Really? The woman obviously has the worst case of daddy issues. The father is a sick, twisted, and evil person. Where is the mother?


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 23, 2015)

After same sex marriage became more acceptable and even legalized in some states, I started thinking pedophiles will start to want the same acceptance.  They'll make the argument that they were born to be attracted to children and not people their age. It's just all a big mess.


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

This is not even remotely the same thing as same sex relationships. There is not a slope, slippery, dry, steep or flat that leads from same sex marriage to this type of behavior. She was going to be crazy no matter what. And come on unnamed teenager? Journalistic liberty taken too far.


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> *This is not even remotely the same thing as same sex relationships. *There is not a slope, slippery, dry, steep or flat that leads from same sex marriage to this type of behavior. She was going to be crazy no matter what. And come on unnamed teenager? Journalistic liberty taken too far.



krissyhair - How is it not the same?


----------



## CoilyFields (Jan 23, 2015)

This all falls under sexual immorality. It's the same spirit...incest, pedophilia, beastiality, homosexuality, hetero fornication. It is all sexual perversion in God's sight.

The slippery slope is in the breakdown of rigged boundaries of the definition of marriage. Same-sex...now it's ok...two consenting adults even though they're related...well...ok, if you insist...multiple consenting adults...ok, if you want. Everything that feels natural isn't acceptable in society but once you open the door of "I was born this way"...

This is shameful.


----------



## Brwnbeauti (Jan 23, 2015)

What kinda mess


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

Well, let's unpack this and determine how the relationship in the article/original post and a typical, same-sex relationship are different.

Are the two people involved consenting, non-blood related adults?

Do the two partners relate in a way that does not suggest that one partner is preying on the other? 

Do the partners have a sexual preference for each other that occurs in an estimated 10% or more of the human population? 

Is their relationship generally accepted by society as a whole? 

If you answered differently to these questions for the people in the article than you would for a same sex couple, then they're different.


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> Well, let's unpack this and determine how the relationship in the article/original post and a typical, same-sex relationship are different.
> 
> Are the two people involved consenting, non-blood related adults?
> 
> ...



krissyhair - Okay. Based on the specific questions you asked, the two relationships (homosexual and pedophilia) are different according to society's standards, but not when it comes to God's standards. That was the point I was making.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> This is not even remotely the same thing as same sex relationships.



Homosexual attraction was listed as a disorder by the American Psychological Association until the 1970s. A disordered sexual desire is now "celebrated" and now there is "gay marriage." *Now we see other disordered and immoral sexual couplings* asking for legalized/recognized marriage and acceptance.

Another example--a three-way marriage in Brazil: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/three-way-civil-union-in-brazil-sparks-controversy/1#.VMKs2nZWg28


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

CoilyFields said:


> This all falls under sexual immorality. It's the same spirit...incest, pedophilia, beastiality, homosexuality, hetero fornication. It is all sexual perversion in God's sight.
> 
> The slippery slope is in the breakdown of rigged boundaries of the definition of marriage. Same-sex...now it's ok...two consenting adults even though they're related...well...ok, if you insist...multiple consenting adults...ok, if you want. Everything that feels natural isn't acceptable in society but once you open the door of "I was born this way"...
> 
> This is shameful.



I would argue that it is not the same spirit. Song of Solomon tells the man to be intoxicated in his wife. Surely that's the same intoxication/lust that he had before he was married when he met her. Should it not exist at all before and only exist after the moment of consummation?


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

Galadriel said:


> Homosexual attraction was listed as a disorder by the American Psychological Association until the 1970s. A disordered sexual desire is now "celebrated" and now there is "gay marriage." Now we see other disordered and immoral sexual couplings asking for legalized/recognized marriage and acceptance.
> 
> Another example--a three-way marriage in Brazil: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/three-way-civil-union-in-brazil-sparks-controversy/1#.VMKs2nZWg28



Professional standards change daily. Until recently women were considered mentally infirm and therefore couldn't enter into enforceable contracts. Your cell phone contract would be void under that professional/legal standard. But we know that not to be true.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

I never said they were the same, but I do assert that they are ALL immoral and they all seek some form of normalcy or acceptance. If society is willing to ignore and try to re-image what marriage is to include to persons of the same gender, and in Brazil apparently three people in a marriage, then WHY are they going to close the door on anyone else?





krissyhair said:


> Well, let's unpack this and determine how the relationship in the article/original post and a typical, same-sex relationship are different.
> 
> Are the two people involved consenting, non-blood related adults?
> 
> ...


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

Galadriel said:


> Homosexual attraction was listed as a disorder by the American Psychological Association until the 1970s. A disordered sexual desire is now "celebrated" and now there is "gay marriage." Now we see other disordered and immoral sexual couplings asking for legalized/recognized marriage and acceptance.
> 
> Another example--a three-way marriage in Brazil: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/three-way-civil-union-in-brazil-sparks-controversy/1#.VMKs2nZWg28



There are also many polygamist marriages in the bible that God showed favor to. Fundamental Christians in the U.S. and elsewhere have polygamist marriages. I personally would not enter one and would encourage my friends and family not to have a relationship of more than two people. But that's not news.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> Professional standards change daily. Until recently women were considered mentally infirm and therefore couldn't enter into enforceable contracts. Your cell phone contract would be void under that professional/legal standard. But we know that not to be true.



Homosexual acts are immoral and disordered. It is not discrimination to acknowledge this. You're making a false equivalency.

If it's okay for two men to get married, then why not that crazy man and his daughter?

(For the record, I agree the man is a low-life predator and his relationship with his daughter is obscene and tragic).


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> There are also many polygamist marriages in the bible that God showed favor to. Fundamental Christians in the U.S. and elsewhere have polygamist marriages. I personally would not enter one and would encourage my friends and family not to have a relationship of more than two people. But that's not news.



What Christian union in the Bible is polygamous that God shows favor to?

If someone calls himself a Christian but practices polygamy, he/she is not practicing Christian marriage (and btw, if you're talking about fundamentalist Mormons, they are a cult, not Christianity).


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

Galadriel said:


> What Christian union in the Bible is polygamous that God shows favor to?
> 
> If someone calls himself a Christian but practices polygamy, he/she is not practicing Christian marriage (and btw, if you're talking about fundamentalist Mormons, they are a cult, not Christianity).



How about Abraham? He had multiple wives.

I'm sure the Mormons would not tell you they are a cult. In fact, they're praying for you and I and everyone else in their genealogical records right now that we will come to them.


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> *How about Abraham? He had multiple wives.*
> 
> I'm sure the Mormons would not tell you they are a cult. In fact, they're praying for you and I and everyone else in their genealogical records right now that we will come to them.



Sarah was Abraham's wife. Hagar was a concubine given to Abraham by Sarah.  After Sarah's death, Abraham took another "wife" named Keturah according to Genesis 25:1. However, in Genesis 25:6, she was referred to as a concubine. Abraham did not practice polygamy in the sense of some modern day Mormons.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 23, 2015)

Wow you  guys sound really gullible, this story sounds fake as hell. Where is this town where all or even most of the white kids are chasing the dragon and shooting up? 

  What were the parents doing while all this drugging was going on. You dont even see this in my hometown of Chicago. That  would be like whole neighborhoods of kids are  dope fiends...naw son.

Have you ever seen a junkie when they havent had a fix? It's called dope sick and it  is nothing you'd want to see anyone go through especially a child/teenager.

60 minutes, 20-20 some news outlet  would have been all over this

krissyhair you know that old false argument was going to rear it's ugly head

Children and animals cant think and give consent so that whole premise is really rdiculous. The  grandparents approve and want them to have children? She took him to the prom and NOBODY, not the chaperones, none of the other adults there recognized him as her father?

This sounds like made up BS for hits and to give the right wingers something to be outraged about yet again. wait a minute....incest isn't illegal in New Jersey ???? Off to resarch that.


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> Wow you  guys sound really gullible, this story sounds fake as hell. Where is this town where all or even most of the white kids are chasing the dragon and shooting up?
> 
> What were the parents doing while all this drugging was going on. You dont even see this in my hometown of Chicago....ever seen a junkie when they havent had a fix? They call it dope sick and it  is really nothing you'd want to see anyone go through especially a child/teenager.
> 
> ...



Thank you. This is what I was hinting at when I said journalistic liberty. But comparing this type of behavior to same sex relationships seemed even more absurd to me.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> How about Abraham? He had multiple wives.



But was this favored or commanded as the model for marriage? Is this in the Commandments? There's a difference between descriptive actions taken by people in the Bible and prescriptive ones. Just because a person's actions are _described_ in the Bible, doesn't mean they are morally right or for us to use as a model. In fact, when you look at the polygamous marriages in the OT, there is always discord and disruption, and even sin. Solomon also took more than one wife, and he ended up falling into idolatry and disgrace. So when you take the time to actually read what happens with these, polygamy is shown to NOT be a good model of marriage. However, when God explicitly instructs us Himself on marriage and His will, He tells us this:

Malachi 2:16
"The  man who hates and divorces his wife," says the LORD, the God of Israel,  "does violence to the one he should protect," says the LORD Almighty.  So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.

Exodus 20:14
"You shall not commit adultery."

Matthew 19:4-6
"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and  said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE  JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…

Matthew 5:32
But  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual  immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a  divorced woman commits adultery.




krissyhair said:


> I'm sure the Mormons would not tell you they are a cult. In fact, they're praying for you and I and everyone else in their genealogical records right now that we will come to them.



I know some very sincere, kind-hearted Mormons who would also say this, however Christianity is a defined Creed and religion, and if you accept/incorporate theological beliefs that are not handed down by Scripture and the Apostles Tradition, including adding your own bible (e.g., Book of Mormon), then that is not Christian. Mormonism is a religion that incorporates Christian aspects/beliefs, but it is not Christianity. Mormonism rejects several cornerstones that *make* Christianity Christianity. But this is sort of a rabbit hole, because Christianity does not teach or endorse polygamy.


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> Thank you. This is what I was hinting at when I said journalistic liberty. But comparing this type of behavior to same sex relationships seemed even more absurd to me.



krissyhair - Do you believe same sex relationships are not sinful? If so, why and how are they not sinful?


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> 60 minutes or Matt Lauer would be all over this
> 
> Children and animals cant think and give consent so that whole premise is really rdiculous. The  grandparents approve and want them to have children? She took him to the prom and NOBODY, not chaperones, none of the other adults there recognized him as her father?
> 
> This sounds like made up BS for hits and to give the right wingers something to be outraged about yet again. wait a minute....incest isn't illegal in New Jersey ???? Off to resarch that.



Eerily, it has been on the news. I ignored it last week when it was on Facebook and assumed it had to be BS as well, but when I saw it again at news sites, I decided to comment on it because this was something we said would happen once the floodgates were opened as it were.

Another link, though a Google search can give you more news sources.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/incest_outrage_bill_would_ban_sex_between_related.html

I don't know why Matt Lauer or whoever else didn't cover it. Perhaps they didn't care or they saw the same connection? The March for Life, where hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers marched at Washington, D.C. occurred just a day or two ago, and only a handful of sources reported--but I assure you, those marching were real people and it's a real event that occurred.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 23, 2015)

All the major news outlets at least showed the march. You mad at the women in the Republican party who shot down the abortion bill that denied an abortion to even rape victims? I bet you are   you know their stance on this i s just another reason they won't win in 2016


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 23, 2015)

kikigirl said:


> Adult incest is legal in NJ? Oh my...
> The father's family approves??? Really? The woman obviously has the worst case of daddy issues. The father is a sick, twisted, and evil person. *Where is the mother?*



kikigirl - this part of the article talks about her mother...

"What was your family like when you were growing up?
My parents had me when they were 18 — they met in high school and I was conceived on prom night. They were serious for about six months but broke up while my mom was still pregnant with me. My dad wasn’t there when I was born. I think my mom’s psychological problems meant the relationship never really worked out. She has bipolar disorder and some other mental health issues. They just weren’t happy and didn’t really keep in contact after I was born. She wanted to do it alone. When she’s manic it’s hard to know what she’s going to say. *After I was born she had a nervous breakdown and couldn’t take care of me, so I lived with her grandparents until I was about 2. *I think that’s part of the reason we’ve never been close: We didn’t bond when I was a baby."


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> All the major news outlets at least showed the march. You mad at the women in the Republican party who shot down the abortion bill that denied an abortion to even rape victims? I bet you are, that's just another reason they won't win in 2016



 Yeah, go ahead and go off topic. Gotcha. My point still stands. If you redefine marriage, then this (immoral/disordered couplings also seeking marriage) is the result.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 23, 2015)

You went there first with your comment on the march for life, so no gotcha moment here.You know throughout history the concept of whom  could be married has changed.
 what has turned the majority of society against wingers is their ridiculous equating homosexuality with beastiality, and the guys want your children. I have no dog in this fight it's  these arguments against it just  insults my sense of  logic

Even though Im an Atheist, I don't agree with incest, beastiality, rape, sex trafficking etc


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

Poohbear said:


> @krissyhair - Do you believe same sex relationships are not sinful? If so, why and how are they not sinful?


 

My personal beliefs on whether same sex relationships are sinful is beside the point.

What is on point is that this strange, predatory pairing in the article in the original post has nothing to do with same-sex relationships.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> You went there first with your comment on the march for life, so no gotcha moment here.You know throughout history the concept of whom  could be married has changed.
> what has turned the majority of society against wingers is their ridiculous equating homosexuality with beastiality. I have no dog in this fight it just insults my sense of  logic.
> 
> Even though Im an Atheist, I don't agree with incest, beastiality, rape, sex trafficking etc



No, marriage has always been between a man and woman, because these are the two ingredients you need to procreate children and raise them in a stable environment. 

If indeed, as YOU just said, "throughout history the concept of whom could be married has changed," then maybe it's changing again to include incest, and then it will change to include [immoral group X]. This is the problem when you use flimsy subjective standards.

The only "comparison" I am making is that they are *all* immoral (homosexuality, three-way marriage, etc.), and they are all being sought for legal recognition and/or acceptance. If you say "Yes" to one illicit union, then you have no moral ground to say, "Wait hold up, No to you and No to you, but yes for gay unions."




http://www.longhaircareforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## Crackers Phinn (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> How about Abraham? He had multiple wives. .


  Sarah was also Abraham's half sister.  Terah was the father to both man and wife.


----------



## Crackers Phinn (Jan 23, 2015)

Can't really call it a slippery slope if incest has been legal all along.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

Crackers Phinn said:


> Can't really call it a slippery slope if incest has been legal all along.



I suppose at some point in NJ it was legal, but one of the links I gave above is a news story stating the legislature is working to illegalize it. Just a mess


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 23, 2015)

Galadriel said:


> No, marriage has always been between a man and woman, because these are the two ingredients you need to procreate children and raise them in a stable environment.
> 
> If indeed, as YOU just said, "throughout history the concept of whom could be married has changed," then maybe it's changing again to include incest, and then it will change to include [immoral group X]. This is the problem when you use flimsy subjective standards.
> 
> ...



I was raised by a single father. Very stable household.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 23, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> I was raised by a single father. Very stable household.



I'm glad your father loved you and raised you. There are many single parents who do the same. However, this does not negate the importance of marriage and why it's recognized in regards to the family.


----------



## Ivonnovi (Jan 23, 2015)

ManBoyLo   or what ever Man-Boy-Love is abbreviated as, is already doing a quite push for this pedophilia crap. 

As I began to read I was assuming this was the England couple but ....OMG...folks are tolerating that sh!t here in the US too?    

The crappiest Bottom line is: "That these fools don't know the risks of having babies outta dis mess?  Really!!!!!"


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 23, 2015)

All different types of families exist  not all of which include children. Hetereosexual  men are the ones who pose the greatest threat  to  children and teens  of both sexes when it comes to sexual abuse. And that's what incest is.

 How homosexuality is equated with this is a really beyond the realm of reality.

Things the bible claims are moral/illegal/ immoral & told to a bunch of illiterate sheep herders 3000 ye a rs ago are no longer  taken seriously today. 

Modern society should have laws to protect & care for it's citizens Especially the most vulnerable. 
That being said, do I detect a whiff of political distraction? has there been an outbreak of this behavior or just a smattering of perverts doing this? 

 Seems like cynical ploy to get the base riled up over a rare occurence and distract from what the Legislature is really doing.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 24, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> All different types of families exist  not all of which include children.



How does that negate what I just said? For thousands of years, marriage has been an institution that joined a man and a woman who would bind their lives together and bring forth children. Do broken families exist? Sure, but that situation is not something to be coveted. 



blackviolet said:


> Hetereosexual  men are the ones who pose the greatest threat  to  children and teens  of both sexes when it comes to sexual abuse. And that's what incest is.



Incest often has the component of sexual abuse but adult incest does not always involve abuse. However, my argument is not who is a greater or lesser predator, but that people seeking validation, acceptance, and/or *legal recognition of an IMMORAL and DISORDERED union can more easily do so because the door has been opened.*



blackviolet said:


> How homosexuality is equated with this is a really beyond the realm of reality.



See above point.



blackviolet said:


> Things the bible claims are moral/illegal/ immoral & told to a bunch of illiterate sheep herders 3000 ye a rs ago are no longer  taken seriously today.



When in doubt, ad hominem.

The Bible, just as a piece of literature, is a very fine work with many authors spanning over centuries, filled with history, poetry, letters, didactics, the Gospels, etc. As a religious work, it is not only a profound book, but the Word of God. Many outstanding, creative, sharp-thinking and amazing statesmen, scientists, artists, poets, writers, teachers, etc. throughout Western civilization have been influenced by the Bible. If I'm not mistaken, it is the most widely printed book, and continues to be read and studied by over a billion people.

But aside from that, marriage being between a man and woman is also discernible through Natural Law. Biologically, male and female have sexual intercourse and sometimes the result is conception. This is how sexual reproduction occurs. When a man and woman enter into a unique relationship, where they pledge to unite themselves, their goods and their lives, and are open to any children resulting from their union, this is recognized as marriage. And this can only be entered into by a man and woman--not two men, not two women, not a man and two women, etc.

Once you dismantle this, and say, "Anyone who wants to marry who they love should be able to do so, because it's their right," then that NEW standard that you've just rooted for now includes other couplings. If marriage can now be two men, why not the (crazy) incest couple? What if the incest couple is two consenting adults? Isn't that the only standard you have nowadays? "As long as it's two consenting adults, it's okay"? If that is the case, then why be morally or legally against incest?

Once you tinker with the definition of marriage, it opens the floodgate. I already provided earlier the story of the three-way marriage in Brazil. Now this insane incest story.

If your argument is "Marriage should no longer be between a man and woman," you've just deconstructed any ground to stand on when you say, "NO, I don't think [   ] couples should legally marry."



blackviolet said:


> Modern society should have laws to protect & care for it's citizens Especially the most vulnerable.



Quite ironic you should say this, since abortion is legal.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 24, 2015)

A group of cells have no rights, a fetus doesn't either although your side is trying desperately to pervert that.
If the country did what right to lifers want, pregnant womens constitutional rights usurped by what you want law to determine is a life with rights greater than any other citizen.

The reason for every marriage is not procreation, love exists and is celebrated without  the inclusion of children.

Wealthy women will always have the means to obtain abortions, this will only affect the poor which is the purpose of restricting abortion; control of women's reproduction and their lives.

As others have stated incest has been with the human race as long as it's existed, what once was accepted as a societal norm, can then be determined by society to be illegal.

Brazil had 1 case, was that even granted? Even if it is/was that's  Brazil, they were outraged, so would the US be.

 Once again to equate same sex marriage with every grouping humanly possible is 
outrageous.

One two or a few cases wiil not result in what you are trying to portray will happen. 
To your other point; as a work of literature the bible has it's place,  when it is used as a blunt

instrument to force it's arcane philosophy onto those societies that have advanced beyond 

it's outmoded strictures is when it should be disregarded. 

This is the same book that had it followers believing in magic and persecuting scientist.

I hear believers say the bible is the word of god which shows how psychotic, brutal, and blood thirsty a being that is, but ultimately is but one god amongst the  3000 or so man created to comfort himself that he is not alone in the universe and that randomness  has a reason. 

The bible has a biilion readers? Pornography has billions more  so what's your point?


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole and trying to answer your tirade point-by-point, especially since most of it consists of spouting attacks against God, the Bible, and Christianity.

As I said, if you change the definition of marriage and say any union can make a marriage, then indeed, other "alternative" unions will indeed step forward for recognition.





blackviolet said:


> A group of cells have no rights, a fetus doesn't either although your side is trying desperately to pervert that.
> If the country did what right to lifers want, pregnant womens constitutional rights usurped by what you want law to determine is a life with rights greater than any other citizen.
> 
> Wealthy women will always have the means to obtain abortions, this will only affect the poor which is the purpose of restricting abortion; control of women's reproduction and their lives.
> ...


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 24, 2015)

Yeah  well that's what I expected. instead of addressing the points I made, as I did yours throughout this strange journey through the  alternate reality of the rightwing mindset.

One more time;  same sex marriage is NOT the same as any sexual partnering your mind can conceive of, marriage is not exclusively for the production of children.

 Wow you christians  certainly are easily offended, this was a mild critique.

Anyway I'm out.


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 26, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> Thank you. This is what I was hinting at when I said journalistic liberty. *But comparing this type of behavior to same sex relationships seemed even more absurd to me.*





krissyhair said:


> *My personal beliefs on whether same sex relationships are sinful is beside the point.*
> 
> What is on point is that this strange, predatory pairing in the article in the original post has nothing to do with same-sex relationships.







blackviolet said:


> Yeah  well that's what I expected. instead of addressing the points I made, as I did yours throughout this strange journey through the  alternate reality of the rightwing mindset.
> 
> *One more time;  same sex marriage is NOT the same as any sexual partnering your mind can conceive of, marriage is not exclusively for the production of children.*
> 
> ...



krissyhair - your belief that homosexuality is not sexually immoral is beyond absurd to me.  Also your belief does matter in light of this discussion. You keep throwing darts at my comment so I'm trying to understand why, but now I see... you believe homosexuality is okay and I do not.

blackviolet and krissyhair - Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not literally the same as far as the nature of these two type of relationships. However, they are just both sexually immoral according to the Holy Bible. A sin is a sin. Fornication among heterosexuals goes right along with being sexually immoral. This should not be offensive to anyone if you are a Bible believer.

I have not seen any Christian get offended in this thread except those who are okay with homosexuality.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Jan 26, 2015)

There are different beliefs and teachings, certainly.  In catholicism, the family unit/marriage and children are held very high.  When we marry, we are to be absolutely open to children, unheeded artificially.    This varies greatly from protestants.  Of course, two people who cannot have children can marry, absolutely.  But marriage isn't just for couples, it's for family.  We have a bigger picture of it.  So, to say that marriage isn't solely for children depends upon your religion.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Jan 26, 2015)

just and observation but, sins of sexual immorality seems to like 'acceptance'


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> Well, let's unpack this and determine how the relationship in the article/original post and a typical, same-sex relationship are different.
> 
> Are the two people involved consenting, non-blood related adults?
> 
> ...


 
Wrong is still wrong, no matter what category , it's still wrong.    As far as today's society goes, they want zero accountability no matter how misconstrued a lifestyle is.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

Poohbear said:


> @krissyhair - your belief that homosexuality is not sexually immoral is beyond absurd to me. Also your belief does matter in light of this discussion. You keep throwing darts at my comment so I'm trying to understand why, but now I see... you believe homosexuality is okay and I do not.
> 
> @blackviolet and @krissyhair -
> 
> ...


 
You know what?  They are actually connected.  The majority of pedophilia acts are homosexual.   Grown men molesting young boys.  This is the number one reason why these boys grow up sexually confused and THINK that they are homosexual.  

They were introduced to sex by a man.  Pedophiles prey on young boys especially boys at the age of puberty when boys are experiencing sexual awakenings and here comes a nasty foul pervert who introduces them to sex throwing their perception of it completely out of the natural order.  

Story after story you will here of young boys who were molested by an uncle, an older male cousin, a perverted neighbor  --    It messes the lives up for these young children.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> *A group of cells have no rights, a fetus doesn't either although your side is trying desperately to pervert that.*


 
We're all a group of cells and we all have rights; both within and outside of the womb.    An embryo and a fetus is how we began.   What's truly perverted is that there are some who dehumanized the beginning of life.  

Human development is in stages.   No one is born as an adult.  If an embryo or a fetus were not human, you among all would not exist.  A baby in the womb, is more than a group of cells, they are human life and nothing can change that.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

Galadriel ... Hi Angel  

How on earth did I miss this thread?


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 28, 2015)

Poohbear said:


> @krissyhair - *your belief that homosexuality is not sexually immoral is beyond absurd to me.* Also your belief does matter in light of this discussion. You keep throwing darts at my comment so I'm trying to understand why, but now I see... you believe homosexuality is okay and I do not.


 
I didn't tell you my belief. Maybe I might have posted it somewhere on this forum in the 18 months I've been a member. But I don't think it's possible that you could have learned what I believe on the internet or through LHCF.


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 28, 2015)

Shimmie said:


> We're all a group of cells and we all have rights; both within and outside of the womb. An embryo and a fetus is how we began. What's truly perverted is that there are some who dehumanized the beginning of life.
> 
> Human development is in stages. No one is born as an adult. If an embryo or a fetus were not human, you among all would not exist. A baby in the womb, is more than a group of cells, they are human life and nothing can change that.


 
I believe whole heartedly that you are right, a zygote, embryo, fetus are all the beginning of human life. But blackviolet is right in a literal sense. Common law has never recognized unborn children, viable or still dependent as having the rights as human beings.

I do have a problem with that language, because obviously a group of cells is a being, and it is human. But i think the bad language is to mean that it's not a full person with full human rights. This is going back hundreds of years, in law heavily influenced by Christianity.

There is no murder in relation to unborn children. There's feticide, and therapeutic abortion, but not murder.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 28, 2015)

I never said a fetus wasn't human, I said it currently doesn't have any rights, never did, and shoudn't. My statement stands, it's a perversion of law to grant special rights to a zygote, group of cells, fetus etc. krissyhair thanks hon, you expressed more cogently than I did, appreciate it.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> I never said a fetus wasn't human, I said it currently doesn't have any rights, never did, and shoudn't. My statement stands, it's a perversion of law to grant special rights to a zygote, group of cells, fetus etc. @krissyhair thanks hon, you expressed more cogently than I did, appreciate it.


 
If the fetus is human (which indeed a fetus and a zygote is) then indeed it has rights, the same human rights to life as any human outside of the womb.    

Not only do I stand by what I've said, the cycle of life does and even more God does who is the originator of all life.   It doesn't matter whether you choose to believe or not; accept it or not, it doesn't change the Truth from being what it is, which is the Truth.   

Thanking krissyhair won't save your soul, let alone disprove the life God has give to each of us along with the right to life which begins with Him and within the womb.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 28, 2015)

Shimmie said:


> You know what?  They are actually connected.  The majority of pedophilia acts are homosexual.   Grown men molesting young boys.  This is the number one reason why these boys grow up sexually confused and THINK that they are homosexual.
> 
> They were introduced to sex by a man.  Pedophiles prey on young boys especially boys at the age of puberty when boys are experiencing sexual awakenings and here comes a nasty foul pervert who introduces them to sex throwing their perception of it completely out of the natural order.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> I believe whole heartedly that you are right, a zygote, embryo, fetus are all the beginning of human life. But @blackviolet is right in a literal sense. Common law has never recognized unborn children, viable or still dependent as having the rights as human beings.
> 
> I do have a problem with that language, because obviously a group of cells is a being, and it is human. But i think the bad language is to mean that it's not a full person with full human rights. This is going back hundreds of years, in law heavily influenced by Christianity.
> 
> There is no murder in relation to unborn children. There's feticide, and therapeutic abortion, but not murder.


 
Both of these procedures (processes) which are willfully performed by another human being is 'taking the life' of a child be they unborn (still developing in the womb) or born (which is living outside of the womb).  

To take a life is to kill and to take it willfully without mercy and with the attitude of 'entitlement' upon an innocent life such as that of a baby is murder.  To dress it up with scientific wording doesn't change what it truly is.   

Society simply does not want to take accountability for doing things that are wrong.   In turn they make up excuses which are invalid.  They put terms on these procedures to dispel a bad conscience, even more to subdue or to actually abort the conviction of wrong doing;  all to repel a heart of contrition.   

To willfully take the life of an innocent baby, this baby's right to life which God has given them, is indeed murder.  No matter what 'dressings' one puts upon it to validate the crime, that's what it is.


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 28, 2015)

Really? In which court of law does the rights of cells, fetus, etc supercede those of the being whose body it resides in?

My non participation in your personal belief should stay that way...........personal since you'all believe you have personal relationship with that being, correct?

Well, I don't,  not remotely interested and would reject it if offered, know this though the
 being  you serve has NOcontrol/effect in or over my life none. TRUST THAT

You call it truth, I call it mass hysteria and delusion, don't flatter the being you worship that it has any power whatsoever over me. You just don't want it to be true do ya.

You know, I don't understand th c hristian mindset and I was raised one.Seems you'all just can't enjoy paradise and all the glories and good things you claim are coming your way unless those heathen non believers are suffering, so unchristlike huh. PEACE

As to the existence of souls and whether I possess one or not, if I do I wilI chose what to do with it .


----------



## blackviolet (Jan 28, 2015)

Where are doctors which I 'm guessing you're referring to, murdering children or newborns?  Please don't refer to the disproven propaganda of the right to life movement.


----------



## krissyhair (Jan 28, 2015)

Shimmie said:


> Both of these procedures (processes) which are willfully performed by another human being is 'taking the life' of a child be they unborn (still developing in the womb) or born (which is living outside of the womb).
> 
> To take a life is to kill and to take it willfully without mercy and with the attitude of 'entitlement' upon an innocent life such as that of a baby is murder.  To dress it up with scientific wording doesn't change what it truly is.
> 
> ...



Believe it or not, I'm enjoying this conversation a lot, and not in a sadistic internet troll kind of way. Everything everyone has said is very interesting.

Now, I wasn't dressing up the language. I was saying the history word for word, trying to be as careful and literal as possible.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> And those men were not homosexual but hetereosexual men sexually attracted to children. These men are not attracted to other men and desire to have sex love, and marriage with other men; no they are in fact repulsed by gay men.
> 
> These are pedophiles, stop equating them with homosexuals.


 
If a male pedophile is having sex with a male child, he is having homosexual sex because he has homosexual attractions.   There is no way to clean this up nor to defend it.   

Let me clear something up before I get misquoted.  I did *not* say that 'ALL' homosexuals are pedophiles, nor will I ever say it.  I know that it is not true.   However, if a male has sex with another male he is a homosexual and if it is an adult male having sex with a child he is indeed a homosexual pedophile.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

blackviolet said:


> Where are doctors which I 'm guessing you're referring to, murdering children or newborns? Please don't refer to the disproven propaganda of the right to life movement.


 
You want proof?   

You're here. That is more than proof enough.   You were given the right to live within and outside of your mother's womb which is the evidence of that right which God has so freely given.    You are the living proof;  you being here in this earth, living and breathing.   

You are indeed the proof that all baby's have the right to life.  There are no exemptions outside of natural causes that one humanly could not control.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 28, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> Believe it or not, I'm enjoying this conversation a lot, and not in a sadistic internet troll kind of way. Everything everyone has said is very interesting.
> 
> Now, I wasn't dressing up the language. I was saying the history word for word, trying to be as careful and literal as possible.


 
I don't think you are a troll.   

:welcome3:  krissyhair.   It's nice to meet you.   I mean this sincerely.


----------



## Poohbear (Jan 29, 2015)

Shimmie said:


> *You know what?  They are actually connected.  The majority of pedophilia acts are homosexual.   Grown men molesting young boys.  This is the number one reason why these boys grow up sexually confused and THINK that they are homosexual.
> *
> They were introduced to sex by a man.  Pedophiles prey on young boys especially boys at the age of puberty when boys are experiencing sexual awakenings and here comes a nasty foul pervert who introduces them to sex throwing their perception of it completely out of the natural order.
> 
> Story after story you will here of young boys who were molested by an uncle, an older male cousin, a perverted neighbor  --    It messes the lives up for these young children.



Shimmie, pedophilia also includes grown men preying on young girls, or grown women preying on young boys as well, so it includes hetero- and homo- sexual interactions. It's all just perverted though.


----------



## Shimmie (Jan 29, 2015)

Poohbear said:


> @Shimmie, pedophilia also includes grown men preying on young girls, or grown women preying on young boys as well, so it includes hetero- and homo- sexual interactions. It's all just perverted though.


 
@Poohbear...

 I know Babygirl. You are absolutely right.  

It was not my intention to dismiss the other sides of this, but only to emphasize the greater of it which is male on male perversion. And yes, it is 'all' so perverted.


----------



## Galadriel (Jan 29, 2015)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> just and observation but, sins of sexual immorality seems to like 'acceptance'



Agreed, because they want to be able to operate in the light of day--hence this news article about a father and daughter "planning their wedding"  Because society has accepted other immoral unions, more will come from the woodwork trying to make their case. Their cry for acceptance will be, "If two men and two women--then why not us?" You can't deny sexual morality then turn around and try to apply it to particular groups because they are too weird and freaky. The dad-daughter couple (now that she's 18) will argue they are both adults and aren't hurting anyone, and only want the "right to marry."


----------



## krissyhair (Feb 1, 2015)

I've heard many say that every type of pairing other than married heterosexual couples are equally immoral.The next logical step would be to criminalize all sexual behavior that doesn't fit the mold since it's all the same.

If we punish sexual predators for hurting children by sending them to jail (which we should), and same sex couples are just as morally wrong and sinful as rapists or people who prey on our children, then why not send gay couples to jail and put them on sexual predator lists? Why not sentence unmarried straight couples to the same type of punishment if it's all just as evil? 

Condem your child's lesbian math teacher and your gay co-worker for their sins. Punish the unwed mother. Deny them the full rights of Americans if all sexual behavior that doesn't fit the status quo is evil.

 We're not doing this just to protect the children who can't consent because of their mental incapability, and sexual immaturity. We're not doing this just because of predators who use their physical strength and mental abuse to over power their victims. Let's just send all sexually active, non married gay and straight couples to jail because in the eyes of some Christians, it's all the same thing.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 2, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> I've heard many say that every type of pairing other than married heterosexual couples are equally immoral.The next logical step would be to criminalize all sexual behavior that doesn't fit the mold since it's all the same.
> 
> If we punish sexual predators for hurting children by sending them to jail (which we should), and same sex couples are just as morally wrong and sinful as rapists or people who prey on our children, then why not send gay couples to jail and put them on sexual predator lists? Why not sentence unmarried straight couples to the same type of punishment if it's all just as evil?
> 
> ...



Hey, you came back.  Im so glad that you did.   As I was reading you post, my heart went out to you.   You're looking for answers ,  not a debate nor to be combative  you are simply looking for sincere answers. 

Dearest One, it's true that any other sex outside of the marriage between one man and one woman is sexual sin. 

Molesters, rapists, pedophiles and even those who orchestrate and promote pornography and prostitution are the ones who should be prosecuted and serve jail with the sentence that is appropriate to the crime.   

A homosexual and/or lesbian should not be convicted just for being such.   However, there are lines which should not be crossed regarding the lies which validate this lifestyle as harmless and sexually normal or being classified as being the same type of relationship as that of a man and a woman.

There is nothing in this world that can dehumanize a person for being gay.   They are human beings who are loved by God, treasured in God's heart so much so that God had been extending His grace upon them in hope of their acceptance of His love and redemption for them.

l promise to come back later this evening to share more on this.   In the meantime. ..



Sincerely meant.


----------



## Poohbear (Feb 2, 2015)

krissyhair - Jesus died on the cross to take the punishment for all sins, including all forms of sexual sin and immorality.

People suffer the consequences of their sin here on this earth. The law of the land doesn't punish all forms of immorality. As you can see, the law is imperfect itself. Not all pedophiles and rapists are punished. Some are let off scotch free.

Homosexuality, fornication, and adultery aren't considered crimes on earth, so that's why people aren't punished for these acts. This doesn't negate the fact that they are sins (wrongdoings) according to the Bible.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 2, 2015)

Poohbear, excellent word


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 2, 2015)

krissyhair said:


> I've heard many say that every type of pairing other than married heterosexual couples are equally immoral.The next logical step would be to criminalize all sexual behavior that doesn't fit the mold since it's all the same.
> 
> If we punish sexual predators for hurting children by sending them to jail (which we should), and same sex couples are just as morally wrong and sinful as rapists or people who prey on our children, then why not send gay couples to jail and put them on sexual predator lists? Why not sentence unmarried straight couples to the same type of punishment if it's all just as evil?
> 
> ...


 
@krissyhair, I promised to come back to share more. 

@Poohbear's post is on point. I'm glad that she saw your post and responded. 

The laws of the land (man-made) are definitely imperfect as they are made to 'appease' the desires of the flesh and not the will of God. Yet, there is still always a consequence.

There is consequence for all sexual sin be it heterosexual or homosexual. 

*Adultery: Broken Marriages / Broken Homes / Broken Families / Broken Trust / Broken Spirits / Broken Finances / STD's 

You mentioned unmarried straight couples. The consequences are all around us:

*So many women are living in heartache; for they have given their hearts and their virtue while unmarried -- to a man who did not love them enough to marry them. A Prevailing Consequence of sexual sin. 

What else do you see around you? 

*Children out of wedlock (Baby Mama's / Baby Daddy's)
*Leading to children in an unstable home environment
*Welfare / The vicious cycle 

Read the endless posts in these forums; look at lifestyles of the entertainment world, look at the bosses who are sexing their secretaries; men in the pulpit spilling their semen into lives of other women. It never ends well, never.  Why? Because it's the consequence of sexual sin.

The consequences of the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage: 

**An abyss of mass deception*

Denial / Refusal to acknowledge it as sin
Highest rate of STD's (confirmed by the CDC - Center for Disease Control)
Highest rate of sexual infidelity (confirmed by the CDC)

The deception and selfishness of the gay agenda *(The Gay Activists)*

Their fight is majorly political (not family oriented)

*By comparing their fight to that of African Americans, they have disrespected the entire legacy and fight for our rights and the lives of all African Americans and those who walked/marched/were hosed/hung/bled and died for our freedom, by using 'our' fight for life as their platform. 

Our legacy and fight is far above that of the gay activists. Far above.

The marches the 'we' (our family members) took with Dr. Martin Luther King. The hell that we went through from the slave ships to the bloodshed of Tavon Martin, the blood which still cries out from the streets of Ferguson, the asphyxiation of Eric Garner....

Where was the support from the gay activists? Where were the tears shed from them for the lost of these Black lives? What contributions did the Human Rights (for LGBT) organization, give to help bury these lives or lend support to the families of any kind?

YET... they use our legacy .... No... they 'trampled' upon the life our legacy and fight for rights to gain acceptance of their sin. 

The gay agenda can NEVER compare their fight to ours. When we as African Americans came together to 'fight' for our civil rights, we walked in dignity; we were peaceful; we were strong and we were beautiful and proud. When the dogs and the hoses were let loose upon us, we still kept our focus and did not disrupt nor hinder the progress of what we were accomplishing. 

Look at the beauty of Rosa Parks... she protested in valiance and elegance.

In comparison, when you see gay marches / rallies, they act a pure fool. They walk half naked, they curse, spit, show indecent acts in public displays of non-affection. They paint themselves and truly put themselves to shame. No comparison to our refinement. None 

Sweetheart, Dear African American Beauty... Yes, 'You' @krissyhair... Dear One, when you support the gay activists, think of what they extend to support you. The gay agenda are political 'users' and care only about themselves, even if it means to trample upon and disrespect our legacy. 

I'm only speaking reality and how far sexual sin extends itself. 

However, I do not hate / nor do I dislike a person because they are gay. My heart won't go there. I love too many persons who are gay and would never want to hurt them, only love them. 

You mentioned the condemnation of a lesbian teacher teaching a child.

It's not the person, it is the lifestyle. A major difference. A lifestyle which has a foundation on sexual activity. Only a parent has the right to speak to their child regarding sex; only a parent. 

What's happening is that young children in public schools -- without parental consent / approval are being 'oriented' to accept a lifestyle which they are too young to be exposed to. Children in middle school are now experimenting with same-sex interaction. School bathrooms are no longer just a bathroom. 

There was a time when sleep-overs were so innocent, however, children have been 'awakened' to a new concept, a new awareness, and these sleepovers have become sexual experimentation with girls of the same sex and the same with young boys. 

There is a reason that God tells us not to do certain things. It's not bondage nor is it punishment, in truth it is God's loving protection to keep us from bringing harm upon ourselves or others harming us. Even more to save us from losing our souls and being separated from Him, eternally.

Dearest Krissyhair: 

God is real...so very real. And His love exceeds all that we could ever imagine. Imagine how much heartache ... _less of_... there would be if everyone believed and trusted and obeyed what He says to protect us. 

You take care, Dear One. I could not mean this more. Always remember that wherever you are, God is and He loves you more than life.


----------



## Ithacagurl (Feb 5, 2015)

Shimmie said:


> @krissyhair, I promised to come back to share more.  @Poohbear's post is on point. I'm glad that she saw your post and responded.   The laws of the land (man-made) are definitely imperfect as they are made to 'appease' the desires of the flesh and not the will of God. Yet, there is still always a consequence.  There is consequence for all sexual sin be it heterosexual or homosexual.  *Adultery: Broken Marriages / Broken Homes / Broken Families / Broken Trust / Broken Spirits / Broken Finances / STD's  You mentioned unmarried straight couples. The consequences are all around us:  *So many women are living in heartache; for they have given their hearts and their virtue while unmarried -- to a man who did not love them enough to marry them. A Prevailing Consequence of sexual sin.  What else do you see around you?  *Children out of wedlock (Baby Mama's / Baby Daddy's) *Leading to children in an unstable home environment *Welfare / The vicious cycle  Read the endless posts in these forums; look at lifestyles of the entertainment world, look at the bosses who are sexing their secretaries; men in the pulpit spilling their semen into lives of other women. It never ends well, never.  Why? Because it's the consequence of sexual sin.  The consequences of the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage:  *An abyss of mass deception  Denial / Refusal to acknowledge it as sin Highest rate of STD's (confirmed by the CDC - Center for Disease Control) Highest rate of sexual infidelity (confirmed by the CDC)  The deception and selfishness of the gay agenda (The Gay Activists)  Their fight is majorly political (not family oriented)  *By comparing their fight to that of African Americans, they have disrespected the entire legacy and fight for our rights and the lives of all African Americans and those who walked/marched/were hosed/hung/bled and died for our freedom, by using 'our' fight for life as their platform.  Our legacy and fight is far above that of the gay activists. Far above.  The marches the 'we' (our family members) took with Dr. Martin Luther King. The hell that we went through from the slave ships to the bloodshed of Tavon Martin, the blood which still cries out from the streets of Ferguson, the asphyxiation of Eric Garner....  Where was the support from the gay activists? Where were the tears shed from them for the lost of these Black lives? What contributions did the Human Rights (for LGBT) organization, give to help bury these lives or lend support to the families of any kind?  YET... they use our legacy .... No... they 'trampled' upon the life our legacy and fight for rights to gain acceptance of their sin.  The gay agenda can NEVER compare their fight to ours. When we as African Americans came together to 'fight' for our civil rights, we walked in dignity; we were peaceful; we were strong and we were beautiful and proud. When the dogs and the hoses were let loose upon us, we still kept our focus and did not disrupt nor hinder the progress of what we were accomplishing.  Look at the beauty of Rosa Parks... she protested in valiance and elegance.  In comparison, when you see gay marches / rallies, they act a pure fool. They walk half naked, they curse, spit, show indecent acts in public displays of non-affection. They paint themselves and truly put themselves to shame. No comparison to our refinement. None   Sweetheart, Dear African American Beauty... Yes, 'You' @krissyhair... Dear One, when you support the gay activists, think of what they extend to support you. The gay agenda are political 'users' and care only about themselves, even if it means to trample upon and disrespect our legacy.  I'm only speaking reality and how far sexual sin extends itself.  However, I do not hate / nor do I dislike a person because they are gay. My heart won't go there. I love too many persons who are gay and would never want to hurt them, only love them.  You mentioned the condemnation of a lesbian teacher teaching a child.  It's not the person, it is the lifestyle. A major difference. A lifestyle which has a foundation on sexual activity. Only a parent has the right to speak to their child regarding sex; only a parent.  What's happening is that young children in public schools -- without parental consent / approval are being 'oriented' to accept a lifestyle which they are too young to be exposed to. Children in middle school are now experimenting with same-sex interaction. School bathrooms are no longer just a bathroom.  There was a time when sleep-overs were so innocent, however, children have been 'awakened' to a new concept, a new awareness, and these sleepovers have become sexual experimentation with girls of the same sex and the same with young boys.  There is a reason that God tells us not to do certain things. It's not bondage nor is it punishment, in truth it is God's loving protection to keep us from bringing harm upon ourselves or others harming us. Even more to save us from losing our souls and being separated from Him, eternally.  Dearest Krissyhair:  God is real...so very real. And His love exceeds all that we could ever imagine. Imagine how much heartache ... less of... there would be if everyone believed and trusted and obeyed what He says to protect us.  You take care, Dear One. I could not mean this more. Always remember that wherever you are, God is and He loves you more than life.


 thank you so much


----------

