Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 35218 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26447 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to learn how to read. I did not say, "Where did you get that the apostles on their own after the death of Jesus decided that they would begin a church after his teaching?" I said, "The truth is that the Apostles began the Early Church, not Jesus." I also said, "And it began because they wanted to preserve the teaching of their mentor." That statement then infers that their efforts to hang on to Jesus' teaching became the Early Church.
You wrote....

"The truth is that the Apostles began the Early Church, not Jesus." I also said, "And it began because they wanted to preserve the teaching of their mentor."

I replied....

"Where did you get that the apostles on their own after the death of Jesus decided that they would begin a church after his teaching?"

I summarized what you said accurately. So lets take apart what you said to show my reply was accurate.
You stated the early church was began by the apostles, not Jesus. That means from what you claim that the apostles after the death of Jesus organized and shaped the early church.
I asked where did you get that the apostles after the death of Jesus began the early church. That is what you meant/said. Prove it's not what you meant/said.
The only way you can prove that's not what you meant/said is to now claim that the apostles while Jesus was alive(and without his help)formed the early church.
Maybe you need to do a redo on what it means to summarize what someone else has said? If my summation was incorrect it's up to you to correct me. All you did was repeat what you said earlier that I correctly summarized.
That was that you believe the apostles after Jesus's death formed/began/brought to be the early church. And I said that in my summery.
So what proof/evidence do you have to support your theory.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26448 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.jeremybouma.com/the-gospel-accordi...
This link relates the answer to your question. I follow Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology. If I had found reason to disagree with his theology I would not have followed his theology.
"As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”4 He goes on to argue that as long as people maintain this assertion—that Jesus is the Christ—Christianity will continue as a religion. This is the case because Christianity has two sides: the fact “Jesus of Nazareth,” and this fact’s reception by those who received him as the Christ.5 Tillich reflects Bultmann’s demythologizing effort6 by differentiating between the Jesus of Fact and the Jesus of Faith:“Jesus as the Christ is both a historical fact and a subject of believing reception."
I know people that believe theory. It's a good theory if you wish to examine the early church as being a function of faith and nothing else.
I don't believe the church began at his birth. Obviously it didn't. What we have from just before his birth, his birth and later in his childhood are people(like Mary and Joseph, the herders and the three so called kings) who had personal revelations about whom Jesus was and would become.
Jesus obviously was preaching his gospel long before appointing Peter and the rest to the first positions of governorship of what would become his church. He also appointed seventies to go out and do missionary work and establish churches in towns and villages that would accept their message. They set up bishops, elders, deacons and priests in each congregation. And all of that according to the NT took place while Jesus WAS ALIVE.
So you can believe the church was established after his death. But the NT, not I disagrees with you explicitly.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26449 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You make statements without documentation. Please document these statements:
#26409
“History has shown societies outside of the Israelites embraced every form of sexuality normal to depraved that one can think of like sex with youths to bestiality.”
“Pompeii legalized most all those forms of sex by prostitutes so the 'citizens' could pick and choose their likes legally.”
I don't say this out of disrespect but you have a reading comprehension problem. I earlier made a summary of what you stated and you claimed that wasn't what you said when it fact it was what you meant/said.
You now claim I didn't afford documentation for my statement “History has shown societies outside of the Israelites embraced every form of sexuality normal to depraved that one can think of like sex with youths to bestiality.”...“Pompeii legalized most all those forms of sex by prostitutes so the 'citizens' could pick and choose their likes legally.”

I will have to suppose you know nothing of Pompeii and that is the reason you made that statement that... "You make statements without documentation. Please document these statements:"
If you had any knowledge of the social history of Pompeii, you would know that just my mentioning that city was referencing documentation as it exists on the web. Tell me you know nothing of Pompeii and I will gladly educate you of it's sordid sexual history. Tell me your aware of Pompeii's sordid sexual history I referenced and you'll be calling yourself on your own statement made for what purpose? Seems a waste for me to document to you what you know already, if, IF you know of Pompeii's sordid sex industry?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26450 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only will we have to agree to disagree your disagreement are with other scholars too.
Hermeneutics are not an interpretation. Hermeneutics being many tools and interpretation is putting all those tools together.
Now, I've been rather busy with my Father's care but I have your comments on homosexuality firmly on my schedule of to do things.
That will be the test of hermeneutics. I will define and then interpret.
Well let's play your word usage game. I gave the following as my evidence that you insinuate are all incorrect.

I took the following from this link.... http://www.bing.com/search ...
It was the first explanation given for what hermeneutics is under each link.

Hermeneutics / h &#604;r m &#601; &#712; n j u&#720; t &#618; k s / is the theory of text interpretation
hermeneutics (&#716;h&#604;&#72 0;m&#618;&#712;nju &#720;t&#618;ks)—n: 1. the science of interpretation
hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation.
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.
The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation
her·me·neu·tics (hûr&#8242;m&#601;-no &#773;o&#773;&#824 2;t&#301;ks,-nyo&#773; o&#773;&#8242;-) n.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The theory and methodology of interpretation,
Definition of HERMENEUTIC. 1. plural but sing or plural in constr: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

Why don't you give seven links that will state with in the first sentence that quoting you .... "Hermeneutics are not an interpretation."
Waiting..........

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26451 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You cling to interpretation as if it comes before hermeneutics. Your last definition says it all.
So, get on with an interpretation. I will tackle your comments on homosexuality. Be prepared to be specific on the tools you use to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality.
You keep trying to be so philosophical about things you say and it doesn't always work out for you.
A. From the human mind comes interpretation and reasoning or vice-versa, how ever you wish to state it.
B. Humans have come to call the mental action of interpretation "hermeneutics" or the science of interpretation being hermeneutics.
C. You continue to separate the mental action used for interpreting from the tools you say are more importantly used to determine interpretation.
Challenge: subtract the mental action from interpretation and show to me how interpretation can be preformed with just your tools you say are so important. Can you do that? Of course you can't. The tools of interpretation are in the mind, not setting on a table or a floor or in a library or on a screen filled with words. Those are needed for an interpretation obviously to have something to interpret when speaking of literature. We read and we interpret what we read. Not a tough process to understand unless you wish to complicate it?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26452 Mar 29, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it right. I provided my logic with the link: http://www.jeremybouma.com/the-gospel-accordi... .
"As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”4 He goes on to argue that as long as people maintain this assertion—that Jesus is the Christ—Christianity will continue as a religion. This is the case because Christianity has two sides: the fact “Jesus of Nazareth,” and this fact’s reception by those who received him as the Christ.5 Tillich reflects Bultmann’s demythologizing effort6 by differentiating between the Jesus of Fact and the Jesus of Faith:“Jesus as the Christ is both a historical fact and a subject of believing reception. One cannot speak the truth about the event on which Christianity is based without asserting both sides.”7"
Are you avoiding my documentation?
I also presented documentation on hermeneutics too. Did you read those links?
I did go your link to see what it stated. And based on this statement "As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”....that by logical reasoning of what a prophet comes to know personally of God by visions and revelations, way back into OT times the phrase “Thou, art the Christ.” could have been said by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and who knows who else.
One of God's more famous names given to humans to know is Jesus the Christ. I see no evidence that the name was first known only to Mary. I know the Israelis claimed they knew not the name of God and still don't. But Christians claim an angel told his name to Mary. I see that as circumstantial evidence that his name could have been previously known in a limited way. And that would establish in theory his church existed before his birth if in deed a prophet ever muttered in a vision or afterwards in prayer,“Thou, art the Christ.”
Yes of your links to hermemeutics. Let's let that one pass shall we?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26453 Mar 29, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus did mention homosexuality. "Eunuchs born that way".
I'll disagree having did a lot of study into the usage of the word 'eunuch' and how it was used and defined 2000 years ago according to scholars.

You and anyone else willing to hear from someone that has did research on this topic go here... http://epistle.us/hbarticles/eunuchs1.html

This statement as said to be said by Jesus couldn't be literal in translation as it stands even if Jesus was referencing same sex attraction,(not homosexuality).... "Eunuchs born that way."
The reason being is that an adult at birth would have had to of had supernatural powers to know a decade in advance that an infant just born would grow up to be attracted to the same sex. Otherwise, the actual attraction of a child in a society that frowned on sex before marriage with penalties of death, guaranteeing most kids would hide any early want to experiment sexually, especially if they were ssa, their sexual orientation would not be known for a decade or more after birth at least. Their society wasn't like ours where kids are actually encourage by society at preteen and early teen ages to revel in their sexualality and explore it with other kids.
Follow?
Eunuchs happened two ways; by force, usually as a child and by choice which usually happened later in adult years. And eunuchs in most cases REFRAINED from instigating sex with others. That's what being a eunuch was centrally about for those that used them 2000 years ago.
As modern science knows for a fact, smash, mutilate, cut off the testicles and males lose a huge interest in sex. Many will have a total disinterest in sex. The ancients knew this. That is why they self induced castration or forcefully castrated others they made a servant to their needs.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26454 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But he in turn began a new religion that was very different than the old one. He replaced the reigning power of the Sadducees and Pharisees with a quorum of twelve men. He renewed the ten commandments. I believe he reestablished what once was before Noah. So yes, compared to what was, he did establish a new religion. It's why his own people rejected his message as a farce of a mad man and killed him. He had something new and different and it scared his people. So by instinct they rejected it. And him.
You're skewing history to fit what you want it to ... and conflating religion and government and administration besides.

Yeshua was not a revolutionary, nor a revelator. His message was one of renewal and simplification.

Watch the video.

Also possibly of interest:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11570-...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26455 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll disagree having did a lot of study into the usage of the word 'eunuch' and how it was used and defined 2000 years ago according to scholars.
You and anyone else willing to hear from someone that has did research on this topic go here... http://epistle.us/hbarticles/eunuchs1.html
This statement as said to be said by Jesus couldn't be literal in translation as it stands even if Jesus was referencing same sex attraction,(not homosexuality).... "Eunuchs born that way."
The reason being is that an adult at birth would have had to of had supernatural powers to know a decade in advance that an infant just born would grow up to be attracted to the same sex. Otherwise, the actual attraction of a child in a society that frowned on sex before marriage with penalties of death, guaranteeing most kids would hide any early want to experiment sexually, especially if they were ssa, their sexual orientation would not be known for a decade or more after birth at least. Their society wasn't like ours where kids are actually encourage by society at preteen and early teen ages to revel in their sexualality and explore it with other kids.
Follow?
Eunuchs happened two ways; by force, usually as a child and by choice which usually happened later in adult years. And eunuchs in most cases REFRAINED from instigating sex with others. That's what being a eunuch was centrally about for those that used them 2000 years ago.
As modern science knows for a fact, smash, mutilate, cut off the testicles and males lose a huge interest in sex. Many will have a total disinterest in sex. The ancients knew this. That is why they self induced castration or forcefully castrated others they made a servant to their needs.
"Born that way" does not need to be interpreted as a known condition from birth.

Moreover, your article notes at the very start, that eunuch does not always involve literal castration.

Given the commonality of homosexuality through history, it would be highly unlikely that Jesus would mention a lessor condition and ignore homosexuality. Especially in the context of a discussion about marriage and the options of celibacy.

This is a well researched study of the issue:

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26456 Mar 29, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You're skewing history to fit what you want it to ... and conflating religion and government and administration besides.
Yeshua was not a revolutionary, nor a revelator. His message was one of renewal and simplification.
Watch the video.
Also possibly of interest:
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11570-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =i8IJOgMVE1QXX
An incredible prophecy by Jesus that you see in your own community today!

Matthew 16:13-18 (NASB77)
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15 He •said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#26457 Mar 29, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Born that way" does not need to be interpreted as a known condition from birth.
Moreover, your article notes at the very start, that eunuch does not always involve literal castration.
Given the commonality of homosexuality through history, it would be highly unlikely that Jesus would mention a lessor condition and ignore homosexuality. Especially in the context of a discussion about marriage and the options of celibacy.
This is a well researched study of the issue:
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm
Still attempting to prove the depth of your idiocy, KiMare?

We know you are a moron, mission accomplished.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26458 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll disagree having did a lot of study into the usage of the word 'eunuch' and how it was used and defined 2000 years ago according to scholars.
You and anyone else willing to hear from someone that has did research on this topic go here... http://epistle.us/hbarticles/eunuchs1.html
This statement as said to be said by Jesus couldn't be literal in translation as it stands even if Jesus was referencing same sex attraction,(not homosexuality).... "Eunuchs born that way."
The reason being is that an adult at birth would have had to of had supernatural powers to know a decade in advance that an infant just born would grow up to be attracted to the same sex. Otherwise, the actual attraction of a child in a society that frowned on sex before marriage with penalties of death, guaranteeing most kids would hide any early want to experiment sexually, especially if they were ssa, their sexual orientation would not be known for a decade or more after birth at least. Their society wasn't like ours where kids are actually encourage by society at preteen and early teen ages to revel in their sexualality and explore it with other kids.
Follow?
Eunuchs happened two ways; by force, usually as a child and by choice which usually happened later in adult years. And eunuchs in most cases REFRAINED from instigating sex with others. That's what being a eunuch was centrally about for those that used them 2000 years ago.
As modern science knows for a fact, smash, mutilate, cut off the testicles and males lose a huge interest in sex. Many will have a total disinterest in sex. The ancients knew this. That is why they self induced castration or forcefully castrated others they made a servant to their needs.
(NB: I do, I did, I have done)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26459 Mar 29, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
An incredible prophecy by Jesus that you see in your own community today!
Matthew 16:13-18 (NASB77)
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15 He •said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.
Properly read as "You are ha mashiha, a son of the Living God".

vide:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1558-a...

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1559-a...

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13912-...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26460 Mar 29, 2014

Since: Feb 14

Montrose, UK

#26461 Mar 29, 2014
Until you prove that your god exists, don't use biblical stories as facts

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26462 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If Leviticus was really just a book for the Levitical priests, there would be next to nothing referencing what the non-priestly class were to be doing because as many state by personal opinion, Leviticus is a book for the priests only. And that's an outright lie. The book of Leviticus was to all the house of Israel. It defined what laws all Israelites would follow and obey and it defined what the non-priestly class would do and what the priestly class would do concerning sacrifices and preparation before the sacrifice by the priests for the people.
Why should anyone follow the Book of Leviticus?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26463 Mar 29, 2014
snyper wrote:
I'm not Jewish.

However, I was noting that Jesus prophesied the start of the Church in this passage.

Interestingly, He did so at one of the Greek 'Gates of Hell'.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26464 Mar 29, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>

"Where did you get that the apostles on their own after the death of Jesus decided that they would begin a church after his teaching?"

Logically, not even the Apostles established the Early Church ( http://www.christianity.com/church/church-his... ) but instead the Church just evolved. The word church comes from the Greek word, ecclesia and the word Greek word, agora, represents a gathering place. There were no church buildings and for that matter no designation of a church, let lone the Early Church. What is considered the Early Church is the time period before 100 AD; I would go as far as 300 AD when Constantine accepted Christianity and Christianity hence forth becomes, Christendom. Christianity was left behind. All this lends to the belief that Jesus did not establish Christianity. Christianity evolved from a gathering place of persecuted early Christians, from early discourse beginning with Acts 15 and continues today, 2000 years later.

There you go again putting words in my mouth.
Matthew 10:“5b Jesus sent out these twelve* after instructing them thus,“Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. 6c Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/10
“*[10:5–6] Like Jesus (Mt 15:24), the Twelve are sent only to Israel. This saying may reflect an original Jewish Christian refusal of the mission to the Gentiles, but for Matthew it expresses rather the limitation that Jesus himself observed during his ministry.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/10#4801000...
Validity and soundness

“Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms of their validity and soundness.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reason...

“An argument is valid if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. In other words, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. An argument can be valid even though the premises are false.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reason...

“An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reason...

“It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically valid but is not sound. Fallacious arguments often take that form.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reason...

From Matthew 10: 6 we can surmise that Jesus did not send the Apostles out to begin a new religion.

Acts 15: 1-12; “*[15:1–5] When some of the converted Pharisees of Jerusalem discover the results of the first missionary journey of Paul, they urge that the Gentiles be taught to follow the Mosaic law. Recognizing the authority of the Jerusalem church, Paul and Barnabas go there to settle the question of whether Gentiles can embrace a form of Christianity that does not include this obligation.”

What Acts 15 establishes is the beginning of 2000 years discourse, the beginning of the establishment of Christianity and then Christendom. The NT is just that, Gospels, Epistles, as such letters concerning what the Apostles and Jesus were all about. This discourse then becomes Christianity. There is still as much or more discourse today as there was then.
Cont.->

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26465 Mar 29, 2014
Cont.:

A deductive argument follows this formula:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Jesus is a man.
3. Therefore, Jesus is mortal.

But can you deduce that Jesus is divine?
“In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q from P by using the law of detachment.[3] However, if the conclusion (Q) is given instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is no definitive conclusion.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reason...

“The process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reason...

The problem with a “logically certain conclusion is that Christianity is all about the revelation of Jesus. You would say Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ. I, on the other hand I would say, as Paul Tillich does,“Jesus as the Christ.” I already presented from another's point of view Paul Tillich's theology. Since you made no comment I suspect that you reject his theology without a “logically certain conclusion.” I presented some scripture to demonstrate that Jesus ministry was with the Jews. That is not where the Apostles went with Jesus' instructions. The Early Church did not begin as a revelation but the revelation of Jesus Christ became what was necessary to establish “Jesus as the Christ.”

Jesus did not begin Christianity.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26466 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I know people that believe theory. It's a good theory if you wish to examine the early church as being a function of faith and nothing else.
I don't believe the church began at his birth. Obviously it didn't. What we have from just before his birth, his birth and later in his childhood are people(like Mary and Joseph, the herders and the three so called kings) who had personal revelations about whom Jesus was and would become.
Jesus obviously was preaching his gospel long before appointing Peter and the rest to the first positions of governorship of what would become his church. He also appointed seventies to go out and do missionary work and establish churches in towns and villages that would accept their message. They set up bishops, elders, deacons and priests in each congregation. And all of that according to the NT took place while Jesus WAS ALIVE.

So you can believe the church was established after his death. But the NT, not I disagrees with you explicitly.
Actually, that is wrong to say that the NT disagrees with me totally. Actually it is you whom disagrees with me. Why? Because of how you interpret the NT.

You are correct in saying that "the early church as being a function of faith and nothing else." It is with this Christian faith that one runs into a problem with idolatry. Evidently, you do not understand Christian thought nor do you understand what the Early Church represented. You evidently cling to this Christian faith according to your indoctrination; whatever that might be. Considering that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations with their own constitutions, there is no logical reasoning behind anyone of their supposed Christian faith.

Instead of faith in God Christians have faith in their Christian denomination or the Church; Catholic Faith.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 11 min Respect7l 30,706
Choose not to be gay 12 min Frankie Rizzo 370
News Cruz embraces supporters on fringe of GOP 13 min Rainbow Kid 51
News Gay-Straight Alliance club comes under fire in ... 38 min Cezar 2
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... 2 hr lides 327
News A little fat, sugar ok for kids if diet is healthy (Feb '15) 4 hr Berick 2
News ACLU-TN Lawsuit Supports Students' Right to Fre... 7 hr Belles Echoes 17
News New research says sex education ignores gay and... 9 hr Frank Merton 1,186
More from around the web