Christian couple lose their High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexual

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Honestly though, you can't base judgment on full theology based on your experience with the select few. You should try to meet other cultures that have adopted these practices. You think people are fake...and you are right because that is people's nature. People are fake, not just Christians, but many people from all walks of life.

Of course, Christianity is the biggest religion so technically we SHOULD have the most fakes. Aren't most politicians Christian?

reply to post by Equinox99


I agree, I do apologize for the generalization of christians. I should clarify the ones I have met in life. My whole family are christians, they are good people and don't hate, nor do I. Like I said in another post the church in my community does a lot of good. But their, well the ones I come in contact with are looking for things in return.

The ones that give the good ones bad names im not fond of, I suppose I should say. Not trying to offend if I have sorry, Just a heated subject to me.

reply to post by Equinox99
[more

Isnt it lovely that our posts are together, reaffirming that Gods greatest commandment is love.
I had to smile, because when I started writing mine, yours wasnt there yet.
So at the same time, we were both saying the same thing. Or was it God speaking through us? Universal conscience?

Or just a lovely coincidence,

Click here for more information.

A foster parent who is anti-gay is no different from any other parent who is anti-gay. The difference is that no-one can deny the average homo-phobe from becoming a parent, but they can deny the foster parents as it is in their power. As it is in their power then they have exercised the opportunity to try and stop those folks from passing their beliefs onto the children, as it is felt that their beliefs are wrong.

As for the people who spout the bible, read it long enough and just about everything in it is contradicted by a passage elsewhere in the bible so what do you believe? The answer? What you want to believe, or what fits neatly into your own ideals and morals, or what has been taught to you by your parents.

To say that homosexuality is wrong is the same as saying that being black is wrong, or being left-handed, or liking Opera music. We are all different, so why are we so preoccupied with what 2 consenting adults do with one another in their bedroom (or anywhere else for that matter). To apply to a government agency and openly announce you have prejudices is stupid.

As much as it pains me, I'd have to side with the Christians on this one.

It's true that Christianity believes homosexual behavior is wrong. This fact, however, is responded to in a variety of different ways by Christians from vile spewing hate (as if Westboro needed any more fame) to loving any person.

I think it really depends on the case. In this case, they seem reasonable provided the article is true.

Ugh, these types of arguments always tear me up.
First of all, if a child is curious about homosexuality, try your best to explain. You can't hide it forever.It's best for the parent(s) to be openly honest about everything, unless you want your child to learn it somewhere else, and probably be misinformed.

I am pretty bummed out this couple was denied. Since they have fostered children before and it seems they are good at it. Many children out their are in need of good parents.
BUT
It's evil to basically tell a child homosexuality is wrong.

I am going to past a long explanation as to why most have no clue why and how these things happen. Why most do not know who they really are and what your relationship with government really is. In a nutshell it is all an illusion. Read though it and for those who wonder where justice lies and what justice is....you may find it below. This was posted in a forum i frequent and I could not explain it any better than the author. I hope it resonates with you all. This could be the piece of the puzzle you are missing.

"I. Background and framework.
The government founded by the original Constitution, 1787, is no longer operational. Instead, what is called the “Government of the United States” is a bankrupt, private corporation, owned, underwritten, and functioning in commerce as a front for the international bankers and the Powers-That-Be with which said bankers are allied. The entire institution, i.e., “US Inc.,” is private (not free) enterprise administering the ongoing business and political ends of the actual owners. In this current scenario, every action of US Inc. is a commercial transaction by and between fictitious entities all transpiring for the purpose of furthering the economic and political objectives of the alleged creditors.

This situation arose from the borrowing by USA from European central banks and owing the unpaid indebtedness to the Crown from the original joint-venture agreement between the Colonies (which are corporations of the Crown) and the Crown per se. It appears as though USA has been bankrupt from inception, i.e., from 1788, and the Constitution was drafted to “re-constitute” the unpaid debt and structure an organization for functioning in bankruptcy.

The Civil War was staged and financed by the bankers and the Crown to conquer the nation by engaging in the timeless strategy of “divide and conquer.” Pitting North against South resulted in the dissolution of the de jure Federal government of the organic Constitution. The States were drawn into the Central Government, as were—progressively—the people directly, with the whole conglomerate operating through the new Federal Government in the Emergency War Powers of 12 Stat. 319, 1861, under the “law of necessity.”

Thus, the “Government” functions under mere “color (appearance only) of government” with the President as acting dictator on behalf of the bankers under the President’s capacity as Commander in Chief of the Military. I.e., when the seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, Congress—and, indeed, the entire de jure Government of USA under the original Constitution—dissolved based on absence of a Congressional quorum to adjourn and re-convene. The result is that the actual winner of the Civil War was neither the North nor the South, but the bankers who owned the new Federal Government that defeated both North and South and absorbed and subserved the States into itself.

In accordance, inter alia, with the Limited Liability Act of 1851, the Emergency War Powers, 12 Stat. 319, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the constitutional provision allowing Congress authority to pass any law Congress wishes within the ten-mile square territory of Washington, DC, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed ratified in 1868. Within that framework, on February 21st, 1871, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, 16 Stat. 419, “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” which act was revised in 1874 and reorganized June 8, 1878, 20 Stat. 102, Chap 180, 45th Congress, 2nd Session, “An Act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia.” This “government” is a private corporation now known and copyrighted by such names as “The United States Government,” “United States,” “U.S.,” “U.S.A.,” etc., all referenced herein as “US Inc.”

It is important to understand that US Inc. is not a country, but a corporation—and indeed a bankrupt corporation operating under color of government as the front and device for administering the conquest in law and commerce of the United States of America. The 14th Amendment and US Inc. are all private international law in the admiralty-maritime/Law Merchant of Roman Civil Law.

The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This amendment allows US Inc. to have complete jurisdiction over “citizens,” i.e., corporate subsets of US Inc., which the de jure federal government did not and could not possess. The 14th Amendment also states (section 4): “The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion [per 12 Stat. 319], shall not be questioned.”

The 14th Amendment established the framework for complete conquest and absorption of the country, rendering the people permanent debtors, indentured servants in involuntary servitude, peonage, and also enemies of the government as a result, in accordance with 12 State 319, any aspect of US Inc. may summarily confiscate property in rem without necessity for judicial process whenever any citizen asserts a challenge to the laws of the United States, i.e., US Inc.

Remnants of the de jure Government remained after the 14th Amendment, however, based on such things as the continuing circulation of gold and silver coin (the money of sovereigns) and the fact that Senators were still elected to the Senate by Electors of the States rather than by direct, popular vote. Senators became elected by direct vote of the people with the passage of the 17th Amendment. The Civil War had forced each sovereign State to pledge its assets as collateral and become surety and a cosigner for the defaulted Federal Government’s debt to the bankers. This procedure was repeated in the 1933 bankruptcy, at which time gold and silver coin (substance) were outlawed as money for citizens of the United States (fictions). Inability to use gold and silver as money solidified the bankruptcy of US Inc. and foreclosed every such citizen from accessing real money for use in payment of debts, thereby denying access to sovereignty. US Inc. is completely devoid of rights, substance, standing in law, and sovereign character, as is every citizen of the United States.

II. The creation and nature of the strawman.
Because additional pledging of assets was required to enable the now-bankrupt corporation to continue to operate when civilly dead, the governors of all the States met to discuss the “emergency” declared by Franklin D. Roosevelt, i.e., the bankruptcy, and how to reorganize US Inc. to continue functioning when bankrupt by means of insurance underwriting by the creditors.

The governors of the States made a “pledge” to US Inc. to underwrite the bankruptcy through a grand scheme of limited-liability insurance. The people, through their “Certificates of Live Birth,” a/k/a “newborn identification,” were registered in the office of the county recorder by “registered agents” of the government such as the “registered doctor” and “registered nurse,” and were thereby established as property of the State. Remember “register” derives from “regis,” meaning “king,” whereby everything “registered” is there to record and keep track of the king’s property.

The newborn identification is identified with, and attaches to, the flesh-and-blood being by taking a drop of blood and the print (usually footprint) of the baby and applying them to the newborn identification. Once that certificate is registered, it is recorded as a “certificate of title,” as it were, to the real being. Since the point is to be able to enslave the child and render him a surety for the debt of the bankrupt US Inc., it makes no difference who or what the baby is. Everyone becomes classified as “fungible[1] goods,” like interchangeable bales of cotton.

The parents did not understand what was happening, so the process was thereby fraud based on deceit and non-disclosure. Obviously, with full disclosure of the terms and conditions involved in the alleged contract, no one would agree to go along with it. The agents of the government perpetrate a fraudulent transfer by registering the name, blood, and footprint of beings that is birthed by the living woman and not the corporate state (which can generate only more legal fictions, not real beings). This process amounts to theft of the real being by filing a piece of paper. The State did not create the name from which the all-caps strawman was derived, only colored the name into a form they could use. The name in upper- and lower-case letters pertains to the real being, while the all-caps strawman is a legal fiction used as credit against which to borrow at the expense of the life-force of the living being to which the name and registered newborn identification allegedly relates.

When the Governors of the States, at the Conference of Governors of March 6, 1933, pledged as State-registered assets the newborn identifications of those born in the State to the federal bankruptcy, the people’s energy was established as the collateral for backing the whole operation—the entire national debt. Since the States, being fictitious, commercial entities with no capacity to recognize real beings, could not pledge private, living people or their property, a “bridge” was needed between the living people and the bankruptcy of the federal US Inc. To accomplish this result the strawman was created by the Department of Commerce in Washington, DC, to function as a shill to operate out front publicly in place of the people. The scheme had to be so clever that the people would agree to operate as surety for the debts, charges, and obligations of the strawman without knowing what was happening to them, who did it, what they were agreeing to, or how the whole process worked.

The birth certificate with the all-caps name created by the U.S. Department of Commerce is a certificate of equity interest, akin to a “pink slip”[2] pertaining to a vehicle, and possibly a bill of lading, a document of bailment, which ships the cargo (new and original birth certificate) into the special maritime jurisdiction of the creditors to operate as collateral to back the bankruptcy reorganization of US Inc. via the Governor’s pledge. The all-caps strawman is thereby “birthed”—like a vessel—into the private, international-law special maritime jurisdiction of the bankers, et al, as a “citizen of the United States born [birthed] or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

By this scheme the living people assumed the roll of guarantor, accommodation party, and surety for the legal fiction that functions for the benefit and enrichment of the creditors. In this scenario it is the strawman, not the living being, that operates throughout the entirety of today’s law and commerce. One need only look at the Social Security Card, School Records, Passports, Driver’s Licenses, credit cards, utility bills, etc., all of which are always in all-capital letters—just as are gravestones of dead people all over the world and the parties to a dispute on the caption of a court brief—to see the ubiquitous use of the strawman in today’s commercial and legal world.

A “surety” is defined as “the one who is responsible to pay.” The real man is the surety and liable by contract to pay for the debts and obligations of the strawman, even though the real man is not, nor does he own, nor does he receive title to, anything purchased or accomplished by use of the strawman. The strawman is owned by US Inc. and the banks that purchased bonds issued by the Treasury against the strawman (as credit).

As stated, US Inc. is bankrupt, and has been since 1933. US Inc. has no gold or silver to pay any debts and is civilly dead. Having neither possession, nor right of possession, nor legal capacity to use gold and silver, i.e., “lawful money,” the only asset left to finance the continued operation of the bankrupt US Inc., i.e., the “government,” was the people, who were hypothecated as the credit/collateral to finance the bankruptcy US Inc. uses the substance and labor of the people to finance its entire operation. reorganization and insurance underwriting.

The scenario is extremely sophisticated, resulting in the operation of a vast and pervasive administration of legalized peonage, slavery, permanent indentured servitude, and collectivism (communism) wherein the people have forfeited all standing in law and are “dead to rights.” The Powers-That-Be borrow against your life, rights, and labor to finance their administration of the system they use to exploit, plunder, and dominate you, all under the pretext/presumption that they are acting as your agents to fulfill your own requests. In this scheme one is punished when one fails to pay or obey.

The sequence of steps involved in creating the existing system, in accordance with the best research to date (resulting from the efforts of many devoted people), is as follows in the United States:

1. A living, flesh-and-blood baby is born from its mother’s womb.

2. The legal/commercial system, existing and functioning entirely in the abstract realm of words, contracts, legal persons, corporate entities, laws, symbols, ideas, commerce, private international law, etc., (which constitutes the “matrix”) cannot see, recognize, or deal directly with the real world, including real people. The system itself is imaginary, while the real world is genuine and substantive. Consequently, the system deals only with documents and matters in the abstract realm that form, by presumption, ratified implied contract attached to the real world by “operation of law” and the tacit consent of the people.

3. Just after birth, the involved doctors and hospitals have the mother sign a “birth certificate,” i.e., a “certificate of live birth,” without telling the mother (and undoubtedly without themselves knowing the truth) that by so doing she and the doctor are criminally informing on her newborn baby as an enemy of the state in accordance with the War Powers and turning the baby over to the bankers as chattel property and slave, pledging the baby’s life-energy and labor in perpetuity as the collateral for borrowing into existence all “currency” (debt-paper) that passes as “money” today.[3]

4. The original birth certificate, a “Certificate of Live Birth,” constitutes, as it were, a “certificate of title” to the real being, and is in essence the equivalent of a “manufacturer’s statement (or certificate) of origin,” i.e., “MSO” or “MCO,” which is created upon manufacturing an automobile and constitutes title to the vehicle.

5. Just as in the case of a car, anything being “registered” in the legal system is established on the record as property of the king. The key here is "registered," a word deriving from “regis,” meaning “king,” whereby everything “registered” is recorded as the king’s property.

6. The sequence of steps concerning the birth certificate appears to be as follows:
a. After registration of the Certificate of Live Birth in the office of the county recorder, the county recorder makes a certified, true copy or microfilm, retains it, and sends the original to the Department of Commerce in the State.
b. As in the case of the county recorder, the State Department of Commerce makes a certified, true copy or microfilm, retains it, and sends the original to the Department of Commerce of the Federal Government in Washington, DC.
c. The Department of Commerce in Washington then makes a certified, true copy and, in addition, creates a new document, constituting a “certificate of equity interest,” which is labeled “Birth Certificate.” This birth certificate, however, has the child’s name in all-capital letters, unlike the original birth certificate filed in the county recorder on which the name was in upper- and lower-case letters.
d. The Department of Commerce in Washington, DC then forwards the originals of both documents to the record repository in such locations as The Hague, for holding on behalf of the international banks, e.g., the “World Bank,” the “Bank of International Settlement,” IMF, et al. There the documents remain on deposit as the collateral/asset for hypothecating into existence the credit that finances the underwriting of the world’s bankrupt governments.

7. By this means, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy from reality into the fictitious, colorable realm of international commerce.


The private, international law that governs the legal/commercial system today is the Uniform Commercial Code, which is established as the law of the land in the United States in Public Laws 88-243 and 88-244. The UCC is private, not public, law, and is copyrighted by Unidroit, an Italian corporation out of the Vatican.
Now the people, via their all-caps names, are classified as “human resources,” and "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code—see Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" saleable in commerce.

The Department of Treasury issues bonds on the birth certificates, which are sold through securities exchanges and purchased—by extending credit on the bank’s books—by the Federal Reserve Bank, which uses the bonds as “reserves” for creating credit in the fractional reserve system. The people’s labor becomes the collateral for issuing Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of "debt obligation" (see 18 USC §411). The bonds are held in trust for the purchaser, now the “secured party” and holder in due course, at the Resolution Trust Company at 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Federal Reserve. It is a high-rise office building with a sign that reads, "The Tower of Power."

After the New Deal the all-caps name, hereinafter “strawman,” is what the system deals with, since it cannot interface directly with real beings. The real being, however, is presumed to have ratified the deal, agreed to the pledge, by the three (3) means for signifying ratification of implied contracts[4].

Thereafter, the system functions on the basis of possessing complete authority to do anything it wishes with the strawman, which is the system’s own creation and property and does not belong to the living being to whom the strawman purportedly pertains.

This scheme of legal/commercial peonage and slavery is outside the Constitution, which does not apply in any matters concerning the resulting process. The system functions in the realm of private contract, private international law, in international commerce, i.e., the private international law of the private, colorable Law Merchant, not within the direct purview of the Constitution, which merely sanctifies the operational right to contract.

Thereafter, every time the real being signs his name on any legal/commercial document, he is creating more debt-currency into existence, signing as the “surety,” or “accommodation party” per the Uniform commercial Code §3-415. He is also placing title to whatever property is involved in the hands of the bond-holder.
In this scenario, the "name," i.e., strawman, is credit and is a constructive trust (trust created by operation of law, i.e., fiat) holding all the real assets, i.e., “sweat-equity,” created by the labor of the real being. The right to the use has been separated from the title. The "strawman" holds the title and belongs to the bond-holder, not the real being. The flesh-and-blood man or women has only naked possession with a limited "right" to use the thing, such as one’s body, possessions, or land. Such illusion of ownership and right is essential to maintain the sting on an ongoing basis, keep the people from completely rebelling if their status as slaves was self-evident, and fostering more enthusiasm to work and produce by thinking that they are doing so for their own benefit rather than for the enrichment and power of their owners/masters/rulers.

When the strawman violates some rule or statute, such as is presumed whenever the strawman receives a traffic ticket, the flesh-and-blood being must appear at an arraignment and admit that he is the surety and accommodation party for the strawman, and thereby agree to provide the "energy" necessary for providing whatever fine or penalty is deemed due and payable. The real being has re-confirmed the contract of implied unification of the real being with the strawman by saying “here” when the strawman’s name is called in the idem sonans, i.e., “same-sound,” tribunal.[5] This is why it essential for the operation of the system that people "voluntarily give" their names to the court. The “Defendant” in the action is the strawman, not the real being. The real being confirms that he is, or may legally be treated the same as, the Defendant. Through this process one has entered through a door over which is inscribed: “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”
It is now clear that the strawman is:

1. A “nom de guerre,” meaning “a name of war,” whereby the strawman is regarded as being in a state of “insurrection or rebellion” per Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, 12 Stat. 319, and the Trading With The Enemy Act;
2. A “stramineus homo,” or “strawman,” the legal and commercial consequences/aspects of which are that it is a permanent debtor in legal incapacity, a dead estate;
3. An artificial entity owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the U.S. Treasury.

It is important to remember that the strawman is not the property of the real being. The living man or woman is merely the surety (sucker) providing the labor, life-energy, and sweat-equity for the fiction owned by US Inc. and the bond-holder. The strawman is the front that enables the secured party to act in legal/commercial dealings without revealing his identity, and to deceive the real being, who signs in all matters as a surety and accommodation party, into thinking that the real being is doing something for himself rather than his owners/masters. Everything the real being signs on behalf of the strawman places title to whatever property is involved into the hands of the United States and the bond owner, i.e., the secured party over the strawman.
Do we have a claim on our all-caps strawman? The short answer is, “yes,” but only after we assert that claim properly. Otherwise, the presumption remains that US Inc. and the owners of the bondholders own the strawman.

The foundation of our claim is that they did not originate the strawman, but merely altered the original name by changing the upper- and lower-case name into a “same sounding” name spelled in all capital letters without full disclosure. That all-caps name is used to finance the system of power and self-enrichment of US Inc. and its owners at the expense of the enslavement of the people. They do not possess any authority to use the name based on the unlawful object of intent to perpetrate the scheme to reduce the people to slavery and peonage by engaging in fraudulent concealment and a mountain of other crimes. In addition, it is the living being to whom the name refers that provides the labor, substance, and life-force that gives value to the strawman, and thereby authorizes the real being to claim superior title to it. Those who expropriate the output of others for their own unjust enrichment, subjugate the populace, and bring about the ruin of those from whom they steal the rights, life force, labor, and wealth, have no legitimate grounds to assert a claim of superior title, either in law, equity, or commerce.

There is a sequence of steps that must be done to become free of the bondage-system that now enslaves mankind and regain lost freedom and independence. The system has not, to say the least, been forthcoming in educating the people concerning the true legal and commercial situation to which virtually everyone in the world is now subject.[6] A mother having given birth to her baby is not informed that by allowing her child’s birth certificate to be registered she is, for instance:

1. Informing on the baby criminally and declaring her newborn infant to be an enemy of the state with no rights;

2. Consigning the child to permanent slavery, peonage, and indentured servitude;

3. Declaring her baby to be fungible goods and the chattel property of the bankers and world powers.

If full disclosure, good faith, and genuine meeting of the minds prevailed, as is required for any purported contract to be an actual, bona fide contract enforceable at law, and the people knew the truth, the banks and governments of the world would be out of business. It has been a long, dangerous, often ruinous road—involving the blood, sweat, tears, property, and even the lives of many people—to uncover the nature of the clever scheme. Such people, most of whom not only love freedom and truth but principle for its own sake, have not been willing to remain in ignorance and bondage, and have diverted their lives to the task of understanding the nature of the system and discerning ways to become free of it.
Once you have control of the name you can use it for your benefit instead of the system using the name to use you for its benefit without your knowing what is happening.

[Ed. Note- A better conclusion may be: Once you change your relationship re the use of the name -- i.e. for the "owners" benefit -- then the fruits of any credit we create should be free to use without your needing to know what is happening.

[1] Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines “fungibles” as: “Goods which are identical with others of the same nature, such as grain and oil.” See also UCC 1-201(17).

[2] A “pink slip” pertaining to a motor vehicle is not title, but merely evidence of title. It indicates that title exists somewhere. Actual title to the vehicle consists of the original Manufacturer’s Statement (or Certificate) of Origin, the “MSO,” which, upon purchase of a new car, is sent to the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Whoever owns the MSO owns the vehicle, whereby one who buys a new car without taking possession of the MSO gifts his new purchase to the State, which may thereafter require that anyone using its property comply with all of the requirements of use, such as possessing a valid driver license, carrying insurance, complying with all the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code, etc. Upon receipt of the MSO, however, the Department of Motor Vehicles micro-films, files, and then destroys the MSO. Inasmuch as only the original of a document counts in commerce, once the original MSO is destroyed, no proof of actual ownership exists. The microfilm is hearsay. This provides a forum for executing a new MSO and establishing ownership of the car in another jurisdiction where one’s ownership of the substance, i.e., the actual car, is acknowledged.

[3] On its face, this is a most startling statement, which requires clarification. The original Emergency War Powers of 1861, 12 Stat. 319, not only has never been repealed, but is the foundation for subsequent acts, such as the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act thereto, i.e., the “Banking Relief Act,” of March 9, 1933, just after Roosevelt's Inauguration. The Amendatory Act (48 Stat. 1) amended the Trading With the Enemy Act, and was passed by Congress at a time when the United States was not in a shooting war with any foreign foe. The American people were (unknowingly) at war with their conquerors, the Banksters, who had defeated the country by the treachery of their something-for-nothing paper-money banking swindle and other deceits, rather than force of arms. The pen can indeed be mightier (and more suicidal for those who mindlessly use it) than the sword. This amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act provided "legal" justification for dramatic increases in the power, scope, and authority of the U.S. Government (now owned by and an administrative agency of the bankers).

The original Trading with the Enemy Act excluded citizens of the United States from being treated as the enemy when involved in transactions wholly within the United States. The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, however, expressly included the people of the United States as the enemy by insertion of the following text: "...by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 1(b).
By operation of law the American people became the "enemy" of the private Federal Reserve/IMF Creditors in bankruptcy, who have thereafter been administering their prize/conquest through their alter ego and front, the "U.S. Government." To regulate and control their slaves/chattel property, they rendered (under color of law and government) all intercourse illegal amongst the American people without obtaining permission through licensing. To travel, a driver's license is required; to open a business requires a business license (not to mention additional and on-going mountains of "red tape"); to work for another one must obtain licensing through a Social Security card.

To be "within the United States" one must merely be a "person" or "resident," i.e., a 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States." Although one can never know who actually knows what, the chances are overwhelmingly large that the vast majority of doctors and hospital personnel are as ignorant of how badly they’ve been had as the rest of their fellow countrymen. Part of the cleverness of the sting is that it has been structured so that the people end up policing and being policed by each other without ever knowing whose agenda they are actually fulfilling. It is possible that Henry Ford was correct in his celebrated statement: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

[4] The three means of ratifying an implied contract, i.e., a unilateral offer from the system to you, are: 1) Do nothing; 2) Accept benefits from the system; 3) Fail to know, declare, and properly notice the appropriate parties in the system of your applicable law.

[5] A given name sounds the same when spoken, regardless of whether the spelling on paper consists of all-capital letters (the strawman) or upper- and lower-case letters (symbolically representing the real being).

[6] The nature of the existing scenario is not, for instance, on the curriculum of any institution of public education, nor is it discussed in the media, news, law schools, etc."

Make of it what you will. I view the above as a reflection of the greed of the man/women as a whole and may just be what was needed to control those who have forgotten who they really are. Once we find LOVE in our hearts this system will crumble for it will no longer be needed.

Peace!

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
]Originally posted by theicc
I'm really proud of this court for standing up to the pressure of mindless "Christians" and barring them from indoctrinating an innocent life with their hate filled religion.


Ummm... and telling a small child that putting your peepee in the pooper is not indoctrination?
A child should not be exposed to such things, a child should be too busy being a child

No.

Indoctrination is:

"This is the only way to do things do not question it."

Explaining biological processes is not going to harm a child. Explaining to a child how their bodies work and how they came to be is not going to hurt a child. Simply, telling children the truth about life does not corrupt them, in fact, it lets them know that the adults in their life won't lie to them about the obviousness of reality.

Some people are attracted to men, some people are attracted to women. A child's head will not explode from learning the truth.

Also saying something like "OMG children should be outside playing not hearing about such things as how sex works or the fact that there are people with differing sexual prefrences..."

Makes it sound like the only thing children are suppose to be is "obliviously happy" and that the mere act of learning will rob them of their childhood for the rest of there lives.

Wrong.

Learning does nothing of the sort.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Appearances can be deceiving. Statistics aren't swayed by religion and there are equal opportunities to be a terrible human being regardless of faith. You don't get a free pass to discriminate just because of your personal religion.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

So, what do you think of this?

I think it proves how hypocritical these so called "civil rights activists" truly are. They're just as biased as this Christian couple - just in a different way.

Bloody pathetic is what it is.

reply to post by Eyesa2diffcolors


That... is a great post full of valuable information... pertaining to the US. The article takes place in the UK with their own constitution.

reply to post by getreadyalready

The first time I felt "like a man" was at age 7 when a little neighbor boy cuddled up and fell asleep on my arm watching Scooby Doo after school. I wasn't sexually attracted to him whatsoever, but I did feel like a "protector" and I knew that would be my role for the rest of my life. I have always been "attracted" to females, and I have always been a masculine "protector" for anybody weaker than myself.

So, masculine and feminine roles are influenced at a very young age, and we should be careful how children are raised.

I would like to know - regarding masculine and feminine roles - why aren't all men protectors? Where was MY father? And why did he leave me with female monsters who beat me constantly, to the level of requiring surgery?

Also, where was your "god" who was supposed to care for innocent children? Where was that "father" also?
Why did this "god" of yours not intervene?

You seem to have all the answers - can you answer this?

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

The first time I felt "like a man" was at age 7 when a little neighbor boy cuddled up and fell asleep on my arm watching Scooby Doo after school. I wasn't sexually attracted to him whatsoever, but I did feel like a "protector" and I knew that would be my role for the rest of my life. I have always been "attracted" to females, and I have always been a masculine "protector" for anybody weaker than myself.

So, masculine and feminine roles are influenced at a very young age, and we should be careful how children are raised.

I would like to know - regarding masculine and feminine roles - why aren't all men protectors? Where was MY father? And why did he leave me with female monsters who beat me constantly, to the level of requiring surgery?

Also, where was your "god" who was supposed to care for innocent children? Where was that "father" also?
Why did this "god" of yours not intervene?

You seem to have all the answers - can you answer this?

Can't blame God for all your problems. He gives humans free choice. Also Satan tempts people to do ungodly things. There is always that free choice to behave in certain ways. Suffering is part of life read The Book of Job.

Also here this verse;

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. -Romans 5:3-5

reply to post by minkey53


So according to christian doctrine murder is immoral, yet God himself instructs that homosexuals must be put to death? Your hipocrisy is astounding.

reply to post by Dendro

You didn't read the whole post did you?

What you may have missed is the fact that the "Name" game is the same every were contract law rains supreme which is all countries we believe to be democracies. I'm in Canada and you can find almost the exact same laws in Canada/England/Australia/New Zealand/USA with only small variations in wording. This is a global world of commerce and trade and that includes the above information. The child once registered/identified by the legal fiction name(all caps) is the property of the Crown. The crown will act as legal guardian and that goes for all registered children. This is the way it is. You own nothing. Ownership is an illusion. If you believe your self to be a name and you believe you own anything than you are trapped as you should be. Greed and ego believes in ownership. Does a person who loves claim ownership of anything?

reply to post by Xerxes1434


On behalf of myself, and all those who have suffered unduly:
SCREW YOU AND YOUR IDIOTIC GODS.

reply to post by Xerxes1434

Animals can't make moral decisions nor do they have a higher consciousness.

Do you have sources on that or are you just making assumptions? It doesn't matter because I'm going to argue your points with facts. But first, a definition of morality:

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

Source

Of course, this definition comes from a humanistic standpoint, in my opinion, and not from some divine source.

-----

I am going to quote a paragraph from the book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors written by Dr. Carl Sagan and Dr. Ann Druyan.

Shadows of the Forgotten Ancestors

"In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

87% decided to go hungry. 87%. What does that tell us about these Macaques? Were they simply demonstrating learned behavior, or were they indeed demonstrating, at some basic level, a form of morality and self-sacrifice? Dr. Sagan seemed to be convinced that these primates did indeed demonstrate morality simply for the fact that they chose not to pull that switch to get their food. I could make a point of animals of other species demonstrating similar behaviors, however most of these other behaviors are simply survival mechanisms, but I could see how some circles might argue that they are moral decisions. I'm more concerned with these primates at this point. This same species of primate, which does display traits of having morality is also a species of primate that engages in homosexual activities as a form of group building and bonding.

Japanese macaque

With the Japanese macaque, also known as the "snow monkey", same-sex relations are frequent, though rates vary between troops. Females will form "consortships" characterized by affectionate social and sexual activities. In some troops up to one quarter of the females form such bonds, which vary in duration from a few days to a few weeks. Often, strong and lasting friendships result from such pairings. Males also have same-sex relations, typically with multiple partners of the same age. Affectionate and playful activities are associated with such relations.

Source

Does this mean that this species of primate is amoral because they display homosexual tendencies, when, in fact, they have also equally demonstrated their ability for moral action?

As far as animals not having a higher consciousness, I am going to respectfully disagree on that, but will not argue the point with you seeing as we are from very different faiths. There is no point in beating a dead horse, however, I will state that I work with animal spirits all the time in my practice, and I assure you (from my standpoint) animals very much have a "soul" and can "feel" just as well as any human being can.

Humans have the choice to engage in homosexuality or not to. Nobody forces people to have sex with the same gender, they choose to.

You do not know this as equally I do not know this, and as equally as science has been unable to prove either way whether homosexuality is a genetic factor, an environmental factor, or a personal choice. If you are a psychologist, geneticist, or in another related science field, then please link us your sources for this claim and perhaps your scholarly writings on the topic.



We could honestly go on all day about this argument, and I'm quite compelled to make a thread on the subject and debate you in a proper forum, but really, what this thread was originally intended for is the fact that a family was denied foster parent status because, one way or another, the case worker felt that the child would not be in a nurturing environment. Whether that has to do with the religious spin is irrelevant. The case worker is looking out for the best interests of the child, and this person decided that putting the child in this particular home was a bad idea.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

reply to post by truthseeker1984


You're just playing into the homosexual agenda. You need to look into After The Ball it's written by a homosexual that outlines their plan to force homosexuality on children and society. You are buying right into it with your secular humanism.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


GOOD! Finnaly the tables have turned, im sick of this god stuff, read the old testimate not what has been modified to suit the closed minded views of today religions,We homosexuals are people to! they can burn in hell all them anti homosexual "repression" a holes, im church of england but i abbandened my faith because of this predjudice! This bs about children and homosexual couples being bad for the child is a load of discrimination, its dictatorship in the sence that making laws against homosexual couples is predjudice, there no better then hitler and the nazis, my female partner and i "a woman" have a daughter and she is perfectly normal,has a open mind and is verry smart, yet thse religious people force the teachings of homosexuality is bad and its a sin, that leads to violence upon homosexuals and hate!