wenglund

"Male" is a genetic condition. Saying that men tend to be _________ is saying that ________ is a genetically related condition.

LiterateParakeet is correct. I meant the terms as a humorous criticism.

Said another way, it isn't the conception of a child that is the sin, but the conditions under which the child is conceived. Otherwise, children born inside wedlock would be a sin. So, repentance only applies to the conditions under which the child was conceived, and not the child, itself,
This principle applies not only to sex outside of wedlock, but also to rape. Rape is a grievous sin, whereas a child conceived through rape is not, nor the victim of rape
I hope this helps. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Greek Orthodox church isn't a bad way to go even for non-Greeks. There is a surprising amount of overlap with LDS in fundamental beliefs.
However, while political fit may be desirable with one's religious faith, I am not sure it makes sense as a primary decision-making strategy in choosing between religions. I would think letting God be the guide would be more suitable--that, and finding a church that would best advance the welfare of one's family, particularly spiritually.
Either way, I wish your son the best in the choices he will make.
And, following the good-natured musings of LiterateParakeet, I am considering changing my avatar to a basket of deplorables with a CTR ribbon tied around the base.
 
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am familiar with the Hyde Amendment. I am also aware how the Left has feverishly attempted to find ways around it--not the least of which is via Obamacare (http://www.obamacareabortion.com/), and things like Medi-Cal, as Bad Karma pointed out. Another way around it is to fund organizations that provide other medical services besides abortion (like Planned Parenthood), under the guise of only funding the non-abortion services, as if that ultimately makes any difference.
But, this is heading us a bit into the weeds. My main point is, whether intended or not, most atheists have supplanted worship of God with worship of the state. As Stefan points out, the latter is potentially far more imposing on opposing views. Religions can't force atheists to attend church against their will, but atheists can force Christians to bake cakes against their will. 
A secondary point is how the liberals, after realizing they haven't a rational leg to stand on, are left to play emotionally-charged word games, with the hope of creating the illusion of moral superiority and virtue, whereas in reality it is just the opposite. The misleading way in which the abortion debate was framed (as women's health issues) is just one case in point.
Another is the claim that atheists lean Left because conservatives, "marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sens"--they push government "into the bedroom." This is leftist-speak for the Right being against using the government to corrupt longstanding social morays as well as the fundamental institution of society, with the end goal of forced legitimacy and  promotion of sodomy. Far from keeping the government out of the bedroom, liberals call for the state seal of approval on what happens in homosexual beds. It also calls for government benefits for what happens in the homosexual beds. Does it get much more intrusive than that? And, this is not all. it requires the government force people who believe differently to  celebrate the state seal of approval on what happens in the homosexual bed.
In both cases (abortion and same-sex marriage) do you see how the Left offers up the seeming lofty illusions of looking out for certain minorities and preventing government intrusion into private lives, while doing just the opposite?
Do you see how the Left pretends to the virtue of protecting homosexual rights, while in reality disgustingly making gays indentured servants of the state and shredding the moral and institutional fabric of society? The gays, like blacks and women before them, are being used as pawns to further ingratiate and empower the political elite.
In other words, If atheists have been leaning Left for the reasons you suggest, they may wish to cut through all the linguistic smoke and mirrors (propaganda), pull back to see what is really behind the political curtain, and realize that they are getting the opposite from that which they presumed to pay. Just saying.
 
Thanks, -Wade Englund

Said another way, it isn't the conception of a child that is the sin, but the conditions under which the child is conceived. Otherwise, children born inside wedlock would be a sin. So, repentance only applies to the conditions under which the child was conceived, and not the child, itself,
This principle applies not only to sex outside of wedlock, but also to rape. Rape is a grievous sin, whereas a child conceived through rape is not, nor the victim of rape
I hope this helps. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The church never considers a child to be illegitimate. The child is perfect. There will be no problem with having the child blessed. We bless babies and children in this situation on a routine basis. 

I am familiar with the Hyde Amendment. I am also aware how the Left has feverishly attempted to find ways around it--not the least of which is via Obamacare (http://www.obamacareabortion.com/), and things like Medi-Cal, as Bad Karma pointed out. Another way around it is to fund organizations that provide other medical services besides abortion (like Planned Parenthood), under the guise of only funding the non-abortion services, as if that ultimately makes any difference.
But, this is heading us a bit into the weeds. My main point is, whether intended or not, most atheists have supplanted worship of God with worship of the state. As Stefan points out, the latter is potentially far more imposing on opposing views. Religions can't force atheists to attend church against their will, but atheists can force Christians to bake cakes against their will. 
A secondary point is how the liberals, after realizing they haven't a rational leg to stand on, are left to play emotionally-charged word games, with the hope of creating the illusion of moral superiority and virtue, whereas in reality it is just the opposite. The misleading way in which the abortion debate was framed (as women's health issues) is just one case in point.
Another is the claim that atheists lean Left because conservatives, "marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sens"--they push government "into the bedroom." This is leftist-speak for the Right being against using the government to corrupt longstanding social morays as well as the fundamental institution of society, with the end goal of forced legitimacy and  promotion of sodomy. Far from keeping the government out of the bedroom, liberals call for the state seal of approval on what happens in homosexual beds. It also calls for government benefits for what happens in the homosexual beds. Does it get much more intrusive than that? And, this is not all. it requires the government force people who believe differently to  celebrate the state seal of approval on what happens in the homosexual bed.
In both cases (abortion and same-sex marriage) do you see how the Left offers up the seeming lofty illusions of looking out for certain minorities and preventing government intrusion into private lives, while doing just the opposite?
Do you see how the Left pretends to the virtue of protecting homosexual rights, while in reality disgustingly making gays indentured servants of the state and shredding the moral and institutional fabric of society? The gays, like blacks and women before them, are being used as pawns to further ingratiate and empower the political elite.
In other words, If atheists have been leaning Left for the reasons you suggest, they may wish to cut through all the linguistic smoke and mirrors (propaganda), pull back to see what is really behind the political curtain, and realize that they are getting the opposite from that which they presumed to pay. Just saying.
 
Thanks, -Wade Englund

Not really, it's not magic money that manifests itself out of thin air. Where do you suppose the state gets it's medicaid funds from? Your argument is not without merit, still, medicaid is a federally funded program never the less. 
On a more moral note, and as previously discussed, absent incidents of rape/incest/medical necessity, PP exists to cater to failure to keep one's pants on in a moral-less climate that shouts if it feels good, do it! Sadly, yet with much humor in society, making father's day a very mysterious holiday for all too many. Welcome to the Jerry Springer era (And the clone talk shows that duplicate it). and all the fun and games associated with human tragedy. It's a "Step on up to the sexual buffeet, America" mindset, but then why should the Fed pay for individual poor choices? Why should the STATE pay for individual poor choices? 
You have provided interesting argument with the bottom effect, how would YOU solve the problem if you were king for but one day? I for one can't answer that, anymore than my favorite football team listens to the plays I shout out to the television. (They never listen)

They live. Let us not forget that all those who are born here strove to some degree or another with God in the previous life. Thats got to count for something... That and we are all his family.( how would you treat one of your own children if they totally rejected you?) 
there blessings we get, just for being us, there are blessings that all you have to do is ask for, and then there are blessings for which you really, really have to sacrifice for first before you get them.

Wow, that's going to leave a welt! 

It's not about Clintonesque explanations.  It is about Clintonesque proportions.  You believe that Trump is as sexually deplorable as Clinton.  There is where I disagree.  Trump is from New York Glitz and the Hollywood Entertainment Industry.  He is not going to be squeaky.  But neither are the Republicans we currently have in office a lot of whom have their own wiff of scandals including sexual - both manufactured and real.  The difference is, other Republicans approach Republican character assassinations with skepticism whereas with Trump, Republicans are the assassins.  John McCain had his sexual allegations, Romney had his assault allegations.  Herman Cain had to withdraw from the primaries for his sexual allegations which he proved after the end of the campaign season as blatantly false.  George W had his substance abuse allegations.  YET, Republicans showed no issues with any of them... only Trump.
As far as the women coming out.  All of them from a NYT carpet bomb routine and debunked by conservative outlets.  The first article NYT shot out from the primaries got debunked by the women themselves.  But, when it comes to any Republican, NYT is automatically questionable.  When it comes to Trump, NYT is all of a sudden credible beyond question and the conservative defense the one questionable.  Kinda like how Republicans treated Assange.
Right now, I'm listening to the left paint Jeff Sessions as a full-fledged racist.  It's brutal beyond belief.  I feel for Session's family including the 5 little grandchildren who attended the hearings.  But yeah, Republicans don't believe it of Sessions, but they will easily believe it of Trump.  Why?  Because Trump don't talk and act like they want him to.  So yeah, it's okay if you have allegations of sexual misconduct like McCain did - because he talked like a politician... even as he did the most sexist thing in the planet by picking Sarah Palin for his VP.

Which naturally leads to others to ask... "To what end are you asking?"
Lets say I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism...  But I have never touched an alcoholic drink in my life... Should people treat me different?  Should laws be passed? Should my insurance rates go up?  What value do you hope to get?  What end do you hope to get?  What consensus do you hope to reach?  By learning this information.  That can't be more accurately and more fairly reached by judging me by what I actually do?  

That's not just you.  That's me too.  I hate how the words Racist, Sexist, Bigot, and even Feminism, Liberal, Conservative hold no meaning anymore.

What is [beep]gate? 
In any case, I don't think Trump would have no problem gutting the natural rights of one over many.  Rather, it's a matter of preserving one's country over another's when the other choice is losing one's country - America First does not imply in any shape, way, or form America only.  But I'm really just shooting blindly as I don't know what beepgate is.

It would be as irrational were Christians to ascribe pathological lying and rampant corruption to atheism because most atheists voted for Hillary. It is non-sequitur in several ways.
Thanks, Wade Englund 

Like with most any vehicle, it is near impossible to drive a political agenda (secular or otherwise) in neutral--that is, unless you are going down hill.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
 

I don't share your harsh judgement of the man or of his supporters (I happen to be one), but I agree somewhat with your point that the inauguration performance by the Choir isn't an endorsement of the candidate or party (the MTC has performed for both parties), but a goodwill mission. If anything, it is a gracious acceptance of the constitutional process, and sets an excellent example for us all.
Thanks, Wade Englund

I don't share your harsh judgement of the man or of his supporters (I happen to be one), but I agree somewhat with your point that the inauguration performance by the Choir isn't an endorsement of the candidate or party (the MTC has performed for both parties), but a goodwill mission. If anything, it is a gracious acceptance of the constitutional process, and sets an excellent example for us all.
Thanks, Wade Englund

Whenever God revealed Himself to men He did so in holy places. Temple buildings were built whenever there was a group of worshipers, such as the Israelites after the exodus.  When the number of worshipers was few, God revealed His truths in deserts and upon high mountains.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is singing at Donald Trump's presidential inauguration. To the surprise of absolutely no one, the snowflaky hypocrites of the Mormon Social Justice League are whining about it. Make no mistake, had the Tabernacle Choir been asked to sing at Obama's inauguration, the overwhelming majority of these crybabies would have been bubbling over with how wonderfully "progressive" such a move was.
Moral: Those who whine about the Tabernacle Choir singing at Trump's inauguration are a humiliation to themselves and all who know them, and deserve to be studiously ignored.