User Profile: TeresaJ


Member Since: June 27, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • February 1, 2015 at 1:08pm

    Mr. Prydain. I THINK your heart might be in the right place (either that or you are a troll). Here is the problem with your argument and with the people coming here illegally, quoting from the article: “It’s not even about immigration. Just make higher education affordable so all the people can get an education,” Because you and the illegal people see this as a prosperous nation (and it was), you see no reason why that pie shouldn’t be shared. In some ways, I agree with you.

    The problem is… that pie isn’t free. It is the hard work, sweat, and labor of the American people (not illegal aliens). Education is not free. Teachers and resources are not free. Through legal immigration, we are proud to take in immigrants and help them on their feet a bit, so they in turn can contribute to making America great.

    When someone comes illegally, first they are spurning our laws. Then, statements like that are made, and you take our goodwill for granted. Imagine walking into your neighbor’s house and demanding the money out of their drawers for your benefit. That is rude, AND immoral. You do not demand other people’s things for yourself.

    What America is, is a damaged ship. Everyone wants to scramble on her to save themselves, but the cold, hard facts are that if every does, the ship will surely sink. Reality does not care for your idealism.

  • [1] January 28, 2015 at 2:33am

    I recall video of colored and regular bathrooms, drinking fountains, doors, and dogs being set loose on crowds. I have seen pictures of black bodies swinging off a bridge, and from trees, and poles, with the murderers standing around them. Most of us know the story of Rosa Park.

    What video do you have of a gay only drinking fountain?

  • [3] January 28, 2015 at 2:03am

    Further, Cameron and Cameron reported that children reared by
    homosexual mothers and fathers indicated disproportionate levels of gender dissatisfaction.200 Specifically, 5.3% of the total random sample of
    men wanted to be girls as they grew up as a child, compared to 25% of
    men who had been parented by a homosexual.201 Similarly, 25.2% of the
    total sample of women had wanted to be a boy while growing up,
    compared to 42.9% of the women who had been parented by a
    homosexual mother or father. Also, 6.4% of the women in the total
    sample reported that they had not wanted to be a girl compared to
    12.5% of the women who had been parented by a homosexual mother or

    But even though the Cameron and Cameron study was better
    designed (as opposed to other studies), the small number of homosexual parents in that study make all their results suggestive rather than conclusive. Their findings, however, indicate that the effects of homosexual parenting are still an open question, scientifically speaking, and warrant further research.203 In the limited body of published journal articles on homosexual
    parenting and its effect upon child development, many of the studies fail
    to include comparisons with comparable family groups of married and
    single-parent heterosexual parents.”

  • [3] January 28, 2015 at 1:59am

    “This finding, and the findings reviewed by Cameron and Cameron suggest a
    “disproportionate association between homosexuality and pedophilia
    [and] a correspondingly disproportionate risk of homosexual incest. . .
    for children reared by homosexuals.”194 Sixty-seven percent of the males
    who had been reared by homosexual parents reported a homosexual
    first sexual experience compared to 8.5% of the males reared by
    heterosexual parents.195 Pointing out a parallel with other studies of
    sexual victimization of boys, these investigators reported that 67% of
    the small number of boys who had reported having been molested by
    their fathers also became bisexual or homosexual themselves.196
    Moreover, while the adults reporting having been reared by a
    homosexual parent constituted only 0.3% of the total random sample,
    they reported 10% of the undesired homosexual experiences imposed
    upon them as a child for the entire study sample.197 Children reared by
    homosexual parents also experience disproportionately higher rates of
    having both homosexual and heterosexual relations with other
    caretakers, relatives, and other authority figures.198 “Males appeared to
    fare especially poorly in terms of experiencing sexually undesirable
    events when parented by a homosexual.”

  • [3] January 28, 2015 at 1:56am

    “Additionally, at least 35% of the adults who reported having been
    reared by a homosexual parent became homosexual themselves, and an
    additional 12% became “less than exclusively heterosexual”, thus a total of 47% of the children of homosexual parents claimed a less than
    exclusively heterosexual orientation.191 On that basis, Cameron and
    Cameron concluded, “Since less than 3% of the adult population is
    homosexual . . . homosexual parent(s) have a disproportionate fraction
    of children who become homosexual.”192 However, the small number of
    homosexual parents in this investigation render even this random
    designed study to be only suggestive and not conclusive.”

    It’s me talking. Just so you know, I left that last part on purpose. No credible researcher would claim that research on homosexual families is definitive. That means I should have clarified that in my statement. Continuing, with more interesting research:

    “This study also reported a disproportionate percentage (29%) of the
    adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to
    sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6% of
    adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations
    with their parent. “Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase
    the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about fifty.”193 “

  • [3] January 28, 2015 at 1:41am

    Harry, you wanted me to google homosexual research, but you don’t want to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot. I COULD say the exact same thing. After all, you have cited no research, just the same baseless fluff.

    “The study by Cameron and Cameron suggested that homosexual
    parenting is associated with disproportionate rates of homosexual
    orientation development, undesirable sexual experiences, a first sexual experience that was homosexual, and gender dissatisfaction.188

    These investigators found that less than 6% of the males and 3% of the females in the general population claimed to be bisexual or homosexual, but by comparison, 75% of the adult male children and 57% of the adult female children reared by homosexual parents claimed that they had developed a bisexual or homosexual orientation.189 “Our results suggest that the
    sexual preference or orientation of the parent influences the preference of the child, and that whatever the mechanism, homosexual parents are associated disproportionately with homosexual children.”190″

    To be continued:

  • [3] January 28, 2015 at 1:02am

    No, Harry, I am saying that homosexual parents can and do influence children in their household to “be gay,” and that children in their household are more likely to claim to be gay, and/or engage in such behaviors.

    THEN, I am saying that that evidence ALONE, without even factoring in the effect on the children, throws out the entire gay argument of being immutable and a class in need of litigation. By passing litigation on the false argument of discrimination, when the factors do not lawfully line up, the door is opened for discriminatory laws to be applied to ALL manner of behaviors and groups.

    Groups such as the porn lobby will be able to advance their causes under such a window, and all research regarding the ill effects of it disregarded just like the research on homosexuality, and just like you are disregarding it and my question yet again. If you will not acknowledge that gay behavior is not strictly inherent, and that it is an abnormality, should we expect that you would acknowledge what ill effects gay behavior would have on an individual OR a nation? It is your judgment that can be called into question, under these circumstances.

  • [4] January 27, 2015 at 11:51pm

    “But ALL recent scientific studies have shown that children raised by gay parents fare equally well, or better than their peers…”
    And are you aware that those studies were VERY limited, and badly researched? That the “researchers” often talked to the “parents,” but not the children? Google works both ways. Homosexual parents do NOT provide the same environment or benefits, and children in such environments are MORE likely to engage in deviant sexual behavior, as opposed to a heterosexual environment, just as would be expected when environment plays a role. I didn’t actually need a research report to tell me that. Such behavior is NOT healthy, or will you try to prove that STDs, unwed pregnancy, psychological problems, and other such health concerns related to sex do not exist?

    So, let me conclude my point. While there might be a small percentage of people born with abnormal tendencies of attraction to the same sex (and the highly small percentage alone makes it an abnormality, among other reasons. To argue otherwise is asinine), influencing children to engage in such behaviors is not only possible, the LGBT groups are pushing for it, pushing for schools, adoptions, and fostering. From top to bottom, not only is the LGBT argument false, it is dangerous. The health and future of this nation very much concerns me, as it should every American. We all have a stake in it.

  • [2] January 27, 2015 at 10:50pm

    “I could point you to any number of scientific studies, but you wouldn’t read them anyway…” On the contrary, I do read. Not only have I read such studies, I have also read the rebuttals, what is not said along with what is said, and the attempts to belittle, discredit, threaten jobs, and silence anyone or anything who offered an argument.

    In the end, you didn’t answer my question either, which was not WHETHER there were people “born gay,” but whether ALL people who CLAIM to be gay can be proven to have in fact been born that way with no outside environmental factors. The answer, as you know, is not only can you not, it is reasonably provable that outside factors CAN indeed influence a person’s sexual behavior, just as they do other behavior.

    “I could also ask you to prove that people are born black or white, or tall, or smart, or left-handed.” Race has no relation whatsoever. Outside factors will have nothing to do with the color of one’s skin. A skin disorder could change it, and we acknowledge those for the disorders they are. Outside factors can influence smarts and left-handedness. Left-handedness was even once considered to be abnormal. However, intelligence is not being considered for a class of people, and a left hand can perform the exact same functions as the right, and is not inhibited in any way; in addition, about 1 in 4 people or so are left-handed, therefore it does not qualify as abnormal.

    To be continued:

  • [4] January 27, 2015 at 6:57pm

    “Actually, gay people “are” just like black people “are”.

    Prove that, Harry. Prove that every single being that claims to be LGBT is actually born like that, can’t help it, and environment has absolutely nothing to do with it. That, from the minute every person on earth is born, he or she cannot be influenced to act differently from what their gender, orientation, whatever is.

    Next, explain to me why those few who might truly be born with an abnormality should be treated as if they did not have one. I am aware homosexuality occurs in nature. So does cancer. Explain to me how recognizing people who won’t even acknowledge they have a biological problem is healthy for our nation.

    “Being gay is not an action.” In this case, this is a word game, as it is only actions the public is clearly concerned with. No one as far as I know is suggesting litigation based on people’s feelings, but the litigations they want in regard to those feelings.

  • [18] January 26, 2015 at 5:18pm

    Indeed. If he was “never comfortable with the strict rules imposed on Christianity,” he sounds like those who are determined to make their life miserable no matter what.

    I wonder if the writer had him in mind at all when “Take Me to Your Leader” was written.

  • [3] January 26, 2015 at 12:40pm

    I have an additional thought, Blinknight.

    Do you REALLY think slavery has disappeared? Just because they get paid two dollars and hour, do you not think that the world shipping its menial labor for goods to such places is not slavery? It has only changed names and methods.

    Should we suddenly and overnight have to pay those Chinese full pay, do you have any idea what would happen to the economy? Our ancestors faced the exact same question. Think about that before you condemn them. Hundreds of thousand of people, uneducated, not a cent to their name, suddenly freed with no place to go. It is my understanding that SOME of the states were trying to figure out how they could deal with that, in a process to gradually free the slaves, when the Civil War came along. I am not 100 percent on that, so I am not saying it is fact, but it would make perfect sense.

    Instead, a hundred years later, a large portion of the descendants of slaves are STILL poor, and STILL undereducated. Bang up job we did.

  • [4] January 26, 2015 at 12:13pm


    I did say “to be continued”

    “Christianity as you understand it was not popular in this country until after the Civil War, and the Christians of that era tried to push forward with ideas saying that the Founders and the various founding documents were apostate.”

    Really. Are you going to try to say that the founders didn’t say what they said? There is one thing I would agree with you, although its probably not what you meant. The Civil War changed things, and not in the manner that the founders had intended.

    “Your “Fact 2″ is completely wrong” No, it is not. The idea of separation of church and state existed before America began. It was born of theological discussions surrounding Jesus’s teachings on the kingdom of God and earthly kingdoms, firmly fixing the idea that the two were separate or distinct from one another. After thousands of years of mixed religion and politics, the founders did not simply invent the idea. There was an established civil code of thought, and even if they were rebelling from England, they still understood things according to that code. Look up the founding documents of the colonies, not America, but the colonies of the people who came to establish America, and see their way of thinking. Colonies were established under God, and the Constitution itself was never meant to override that.

  • [4] January 26, 2015 at 11:53am

    If you want to use that statement to condemn Christians, you might as well condemn mankind. Still for that matter, our current state in America is clearly showing us that women DO need to be at home. As modern technology has changed the way the world works a bit, I would not so blanketly say that women must “go home.” I do say that natural law should not be forgotten in our everyday lives, as the natural planet does not change the way it works just because we do.

    Slavery falls under the same thing. It is a concept pre-dating most of the Biblical accounts. If you cared one whit about it, you would do your own research. However, that isn’t your purpose is it? You just want to condemn morality so you don’t have to be moral. Why did it exist? The world wasn’t so easy to live in as your cushy couch, 6,000 years ago. There were a LOT of different reasons for it, according to the customs of the nation allowing it. Most fell under simple economics and resources. America didn’t start slavery. It did end it. I don’t think it went about it the right way, but history can’t be changed, only learned from if people bother.

    The last part, human rights… the Christian founders stated those are given by God. They are the first to put such a thing into governing. It wasn’t human rights before that, it was only national rights bestowed by the government. I thought most Americans still at least remembered that.

  • [4] January 26, 2015 at 11:34am

    “If you presented the concepts of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to the Christians of the first 1500+ years of their history, they would have called you a heretic and apostate, and probably burned you at the stake in some places.”

    The first Christians WERE called heretics and “burned at the stake” or worse. Christianity was then “high jacked” if you will, by power hungry, self-absorbed men who used their position to keep people enslaved to their will by claiming to speak for God, and not allowing the common man to read the Scriptures, therefore causing them to need to rely on those in charge of the “church” for their eternal salvation. It is from this world of politics that the colonists sought to escape and the religious portion of the first amendment was formed.

    Up to that point, there were few if ANY kingdoms/countries that operated separately government and religious adherence, as the two are interconnected.

    “America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, that included denying rights to women, enabling slavery, and not recognizing basic human rights in general,”

    Clarify “rights to women,” because that term has become as warped from reality as your post. First off, women caring for the home is a “natural law,” because the definition of that term and “nature and nature’s God,” as understood by the founders, is a Law of God so natural that essentially all of the world follows it regardless of race, creed, or religion.

  • [10] January 26, 2015 at 11:12am


    Fact #1: The founders, 200+ of them, where all Christian men and scholars, or at the very least raised in a Christian setting and thoroughly educated in the Scriptures. One would not have been considered educated if he were not. These are the men that the colonies chose to represent them. Not ONE single colony sent a man who was NOT of Christian background. A few even sent their preachers. Even without doing research, it is easily logical to conclude that whatever system they came up with would be based on their understanding of things, THEIR culture.

    Fact #2: A little simple research would show you that they did indeed base the idea of a separation of church and state from Biblical scriptures, among other concepts (and it does not mean what the anti-theists are trying to make it mean). In fact, they did very little without having a Biblical argument for it. Frankly, few of their constituents would have listened otherwise.

    Fact #3: America’s foundation is based on the necessity of self-governance, for which religious adherence is paramount. It CANNOT work otherwise. There are numerous statements attesting to this. Governor Jindal is also expressing this, which makes it VERY, VERY American. It is not American to at not least recognize it, even if you do not resoundingly agree.

    To be continued:

  • [2] January 19, 2015 at 6:50pm

    I thought so. “For God and country” is one of the oldest slogans I know of. Maybe it’s not American born, but it certainly is American used.

    Secondly, if that is “sectarian” and “illegal,” then there far many more “gross violations” dating back to Continental Congress. The anti-theist doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but he gets to bully his way around. The only reason I can think of is because he’s paid good money. Obama and crew only seem to jump when their financers say “move.” The rest of the country gets the middle finger.

    Lastly… I thought atheism wasn’t a religion, so how is that “sectarian,” hm?

  • [1] January 19, 2015 at 2:09pm

    I have never been in a church that has a sign that says (this color) only. That being said, I HAVE been in places/churches where I felt out of place, and on the other end, frequently attended a church as a child in which we were the only Caucasians attending.

    Church is the one place government has not been allowed to touch, and subsequently people are still allowed to act according to their preferred tendencies. Rarely is it a race thing, rather than a CULTURE thing, although race can at times be blurred in the mix, because race is just one way to identify someone as having similar interests and outlooks in life. As per usual, however, and especially in America, its not that simple either.

    What really gets me, however, is those that want us to diversify by eliminating diversity. America is supposed to be a place in which we can live out our own cultures in peace without harassment by an overpowering government. The meaning of “out of many, one.” Just what happened to that? Yes, there are basics we all need to agree with to have order, but this thing with “diversity,” aren’t some overreaching just a bit?

    It seems to me that people in the media are trying to dictate to us what our morals should be. One Person dictates that to me.

  • [7] January 14, 2015 at 1:26pm

    “I am deeply disappointed that Republicans insist on making Congress play out this farce at the expense of our Nation’s security,”

    She said that while simultaneously defending the instant legalization of millions of illegals.

  • [1] January 14, 2015 at 1:15pm

    Yes. In fact, cleanliness and public order was dictated in the Law of Moses well before anyone could have known what a germ was. I guess Mr. Maher thinks they reasoned this out all by themselves? If they did, they were smart myth-believers… OR God told them. Either way, Mr. Maher is foolish.

    Responses (3) +
123 To page: Go