"Hi!

As you can tell from the message thread I wonder whether it would be possible
to start a discussion on this topic. So I would in particular like to hear
both sides of the argument, the 'fors' as well as the 'againsts'.

Cheers

HT"

There you are - discuss!!

It has been the experience of the Ship's old hands that homosexuality is one of the hottest topics out there. Our last big fight on the old boards was over this issue. Therefore I urge all who choose to take part to take especial care to be civil and to re-read what you've written before you hit the "Add Reply" button.

Is a homosexual couple any less loving? Does the bible state what the "perfect family unit" is? Does a child need both a male and female role model in the house to grow into maturity?

I find the answer to all these "no", and I second Nicole as I have yet to haer a good argument against.

We were created male and female not by some cosmic accident but by the design of God. That being the case, and considering the accompanying biology, it is reasonable to suppose that the normal family unit is comprised of parents and children.

Homosexuals cannot be parents and are therefore not a natural family unit. If you do not regard these facts as being relevant to the issue then you must have be wearing blinkers.

An unnatural "family" is by implication problematic because it denies nature. Even if you are an atheist and believe in evolution you would have to agree that, considering that the species would die out if homosexuality was widespread, it is an abberation.

For a child to be a part of such an unnatural union cannot be healthy because it will be denied the building blocks of a life during which it will have to relate to normal people.

Yours in Christ,

But to me the issue is really "is it better for a child to either be in a children's home, or a string of foster carers, or with parents who will love, care and support them".

Very little research has been done on gay male couples with children as there have been so few to date. Most of the research has been on single lesbian, lesbian couples, versus single heterosexual mothers. The original research was mainly done where the biological mother was in a heterosexual marriage before either deciding to be single and gay or in a gay couple. However subsequent research suggests the findings are the same for families where the mother has always known she was gay.

Children in such families (single or attached gay mother) don't do any worse than children in traditional families. A few differences are found, some a little negative (more teasing in teenage years), some positive (lesbian mothers are found to be more caring and attentive to small children), some not very surprising but not really damaging (children do just as well at school but in middle childhood tend to think they do less well, though this wears off).

Also the idea that you "learn" to be gay isn't backed up - children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay. They are slightly more likely to have a few fantasies and maybe act them out in their young adult life but their final sexual orientation is no more likely to be gay than children from traditional families or those with a single heterosexual mother.

I can look up the references for anyone that wants them.

quote:

---

Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?

---

Yes.

Parenting seems to be very much about patience and love. These qualitiesare not related to sexual orientation.

Heterosexual people have gay, lesbian and bisexual children.

Gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people have children who grow up to be heterosexual.

Sexual orientation makes no difference to the ability to father or bear children.

If a man donates sperm for a lesbian to become pregnant, then her same sex partner is of the same relation to the child as my stepfather is to me. That doesn't seem strange or unnatural.

Being brought up in a same sex household is not exactly revolutionary either. Plenty children have been brought up by say - their mother and their granny, or by fathers or elder brothers. It's not exactly new!

All the single parent households after (and during) the two world wars weren't following a 'normal' pattern for their society, but I don't hear anyone attacking war widows as abnormal because of it.

Those of us who have grown up in abusive heterosexual families (eg. where the father was an alcoholic) know all about being denied the building blocks of a life: safety, patience, love and support. These things are not determined by sexual orientation.

Love, patience, kindness, compassion, these things will be normal in heaven. In the meantime we aspire towards making those things 'normal' on earth through following Christ.

But of course these things are not normal on earth, it's much more 'normal' to make people's lives miserable, to hate judge and condemn them because they are different in some way.

Dealing positively with these aspects of 'normality' is a challenge to all of us, not just to Gay and Lesbian people and their children.

If homosexuals cannot adopt because they cannot "naturally" be parents then neither should a sterile heterosexual couple adopt -because they can't naturally be parents either of course.

Historically, adoption often occurred due to children becoming orphaned, or losing at least one parent to death. This often lead to children being adopted by a relative who may be single, etc., or a friend of the family, etc. In such cases, I'd think the sexuality issue would be a very minor consideration compared to the reliability of the adoptive parent, and the quality of their relationship with the child.

Very few adoptions in the UK are now at birth - so in many senses the same framework of questions arise.

quote:

---

Even if you are an atheist and believe in evolution

---

A gay friend has just fostered an eighteen year old whose parents [mum and step dad] announced that they were moving outside the area, and there was a spare bedroom available for visits …

The teenager is in their final year of school and there wasn’t really anywhere else to go. The parents didn’t seem particularly interested in the teenagers future living arrangements. Fortunately, my friend had a spare room and a conscience. Okay, the relationship between the parents and the teenager wasn’t wonderful, but to me this seems extremely selfish. To be blunt, both my friend and eighteen year old have both thrived under the new arrangements. The best place for any child is with someone who loves them and wants the best for them – gay or straight.

What do you mean by secular thinking?

As far as you can deduce, what does the bible say on this matter?

I happen to know married couples where one partner is gay, which confuses the issue even more!

I guess my theology is 'Love and let God judge' - I agree, you can easily shoot me down in flames; but I feel a lot better about that than I did with my old hard-line views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dani:
I'm confused. <---- (see)

Are any of the opinions written above based on a biblical viewpoint or have all your responses been based on secular thinking?

---

How about both? As a host here, I will remain neutral in discussions of homosexuality on this thread, but it is useful to note that as a general matter, many members' views on this or any subject will be based both on experience of the world and informed by our understanding of scripture.

So I guess in a round about way I come to this. If we should sinful behaviour by what is culturally relevant or dictated by our experience and not by the Bible then by definition we are saying that what qualifies as sinfulness changes as our society and experiences change. If sinfulness is at it's heart disobedience from God then how do the guildines of what sin is change if God never does (as the Bible states?). Doesn't the bible say that sin is a problem between us and God primarily?

It may not sound like it relates to this topic- but it does (at least in my mind) because it seems to me that most (if not all) of the opinions stated above have no real biblical basis at all (which is fine if you are a non-christian) but are rather based on what society or social trends tell us.

I have many gay friends. Some are Christians. The Christians have mostly
a) known they were gay since they were about 9 years old, and
b) prayed for healing/deliverance/etc... and remained the same.

I have come to the conclusion that their nature is just that - how they are. And it's a cop-out, IMHO, to say, "Well fine, but stay celibate..." It would be like someone telling me it's wrong to be short-sighted... well, okay as long as you don't use glasses.

We are of course to seek to live as God wants us to live. But can I have the temerity to claim that I know how that should be for everyone I meet? No, of course not - I'm sure you don't either.

I know many gay men who desperately want to know God, and the churches have locked them out. Where does the Unmerciful Servant come into it? Or the Prodigal Son? How can they repent if there's no place for them to go to do so?

I engage/struggle with the Bible. I see it as a matter of intellectual integrity, though I'm not a Theologian and my four languages don't include Greek and Hebrew. I used to see the Isrealites' response to the tribes in Canaan as indicative of God's attitude to sin... well, yes - but having seen this Government's rising panic when faced with Foot and Mouth, I have to ask myself - did that Loving God even TELL them to slaughter everybody in their path? Did He perhaps tell them to share His love... and the leaders panicked? if Tony Blair could get away with pinning the idea for mass slaughter on God I'm sure it'd be a great relief to him!

You see, I have this problem with mix'n'match Testaments.

But yes, I DO see what you're saying, for all that - I just don't agree like I would have a few years ago.

Slave-holding was fine by St Paul. He wanted it to be a little more kinder and humane but he did not speak out against slave-holding.

(He was into compassionate slave-holding - I wonder if it's related to 'compassionate conservativism'?

Polygamy and concubinage were fine in the Old Testament (and so was animal sacrifice).

For a thought experiment ask yourself why we consider these things to be wrong or sinful now, but didn't in the time of David or of Paul.

You speak of sin as disobedience to a never-changing God. Yet God gives us big broad brush commandments which require a lot of thought and initiative. They're not so much to be disobeyed as to be lived up to - and it's not always clear how to live up to them. They pose questions which have many many good possible answers.

The answers to how to live up to love your neighbour as yourself all depend on who your neighbour is! One size answer won't fit all - you do have to use your initiative - like the good servant who went and put the talent to work instead of fearfuly burying it in the ground.

When Christ was asked "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

He responded "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind.
This is the great and first commandment.
And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

To a 7th century BC person treating all your wives and your concubines and your slaves nicely would do for the second part.

To a 1st century AD person treating your slaves nice and having only one wife would do it.

To a late 19th century person it meant freeing the slaves.

To a 21st century person that can mean treating my gay and lesbian neighbours as myself and valuing them as Jesus valued the Samaritans, the Canaanites and other groups discriminated against in his time and society.

God meant us to use our brains and our initiative to work out - using Jesus's example - what is the loving thing to do.

There is not one right answer and one wrong answer to 'How do I love my neighbour as myself' but many many many answers of varying degrees of good, bad or indifferent which do vary across time and across cultures.

It's late! I'm tired! I have to leave it there

How many Christians who believe the Bible is the unerring word of God still eat shellfish and pork? Don't they believe the dietary laws in Leviticus? Why not? Where does it say that Christ "undid" these Old Testament laws? And if he did, then why are some laws undone and others left standing? Isn't the ENTIRE Bible unerring?

I believe that gays should be allowed to adopt. The devil in the details, whatever the type of household being considered, is that it is difficult to discover sleazy people of any sexual orientation. There is always a risk in placing a child in a household, whether by birth or family or government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:

How many Christians who believe the Bible is the unerring word of God still eat shellfish and pork? Don't they believe the dietary laws in Leviticus? Why not? Where does it say that Christ "undid" these Old Testament laws? And if he did, then why are some laws undone and others left standing? Isn't the ENTIRE Bible unerring?

---

Mat 15:10-11 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth which defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

The Bible has lots to say about parenting and the family – but the situation the Bible describes is very different to the one we have now. The Bible sees the family as an extended unit – aunts and uncles, grandparents, cousins – as well as lots of friends living locally. The West sees the family as two point four children and two married parents, often living miles away from the rest of their family. IMHO, what the Bible describes is the ideal, but given our lifestyles now, that isn’t always possible to achieve.

The Bible has lots to say about homosexuality, but that isn’t really the point of this discussion. The questioner asked is if homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children … If they are suitable parents. From my personal experience – “good enough” parenting has more to do with the attitude of the individual to the role than their sexuality. I’ve seen homosexuals make wonderful parents and hetrosexuals make appalling ones! And the reason for this has more to do with the attitude of the individual to the job / responsibility / whatever than any other reason.

Not sure if that’s secular thinking or not but it is based on practical experience if that helps at all.

quote:

---

Not sure if that’s secular thinking or not but it is based on practical experience if that helps at all.

---

But anyway, judging from the experience of friends who have adopted sibling groups it takes very special and very dedicated and very sacrificial people to adopt....the children I have come across have come from bad backgrounds and have a lot of issues...

Any couple - traditional or non-traditional - who are prepared to take on such damaged children, saving them from another 10 years in children's homes, are IMO agents of God's grace (whether they are Christians or not).

Love and peace

quote:

---

therefore the ideal situation would be both a father and a mother.

---

Do you also consider slavery to be normal because Paul thought so? His views on sex are part of the hierachical nature of his society.

The dominaant 1st century view of sex was hierarchical.

The man was seen as active and the woman passive. To Paul, this would mirrors what he would see as a natural order that men are created superior to women.

So by having equal relationships man/man or woman/woman people would be to his mind upsetting this - just as if slaves were to refuse to obey their masters or if Roman citizens were to refuse to obey the emperor.

Now if you don't believe in divinely ordained monarchs or slavery, how do you justify putting aside Paul's world-view of these things as natural?

And if you're happy to put away those parts of Paul's world-view which would circumscribe your liberty and your freedoms, how do you justify retaining only those bits of his hierarchical thinking which devalue other human beings but not yourself?

Doesn't this lead us into danger of behaving like the wicked servant whose Lord forgave his debts but who insisted that the other servants who owed money had to be treated with the utmost severity?

The ancient middle-eastern world made many assumptions about what was natural and what was not. Christ did not command us to behave according to ancient ideas of what was 'natural' he commanded us to love each other.

Gay and Lesbian men and women who adopt children and aim to give them loving homes are as far as I can see carrying out Christ's commandment by doing so.

If Christ thought that the only natural way to show love was to be one man with one woman and have children, then I doubt that he would have spent most of his ministry modelling a celibate lifestyle amongst a close group of same sex friends, and having friendships with unmarried people of the opposite sex - ways of behaving which scandalised his society and which were regarded as very unnatural.

Anyway, that's enough!

There is little evidence that family configuration makes the big difference what matters is flexibility, ability to see things through, positive attitude, child centred attitude.

Some sexually abused children do better with lesbians.

I presume if a same sex couple wish to adopt, they have to each adopt in their own right as their union isn't officially recognised? What a hassle!

I agree absolutely with what you say. Having taught some kids from truly awful backgrounds (two straight parents i might add) I can't see, to use one of Granny's colourful phrases, that it matters a pint o' pee as long as the adult loves the child and wants their best.

Now I am going to get heavy. I'm with Dani and one or two others on this one.

This is supposed to be a Christian discussion forum. How we feel or what the world sees as being OK is absolutely nothing to do with this subject, or any other subject that we discuss on this board. The criteria are: -

1) From where do we, as Christians, derive our morality?

2) What is the most authoritative statement that we have of that morality?

3) What does that statement mean?

4)How can that statement be applied to our lives?

ANSWERS
We derive our morality from God.

The Bible is the most authoritative statement that we have of God's will.

The Bible clearly, I say again CLEARLY, identifies homosexuality as a sin that is particularly abhorrent to God. Hence the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Bible also clearly states that we were created male and female.

The Bible clearly says that God has given up those who reject His truth "in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped the created things rather than the creator.......Because of this God has given them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. In the sane way the men also abandoned the natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:24-27)

You may argue the point but I say that those scriptures (and others that I have not quoted) CLEARLY identify homosexuality as a perversion of God-given human sexuality.

That being said we should therefore take a very serious view of the practice of homosexual behavior and should not condone it under any circumstances. That means that we must not condone the so-called "adoption" of children by homosexual "couples".

We also have a responsibility to deal strictly but compassionately with those afflicted by this aberration in their sexual orientation. Compassion does not mean allowing people to do what they feel like doing, or turning a blind eye to their behaviour or even, God forbid, supporting them in it. What it does mean is helping them to see the error of their ways by gently pointing them to God's word. It means offering them support to change. It means not rejecting them from your company. It means loving them as we would like to be loved if OUR sin was laid bare for all to see.

...If anyone else wants to jump into this particular fire, please feel free...

See - I'm a fairly conservative Christian myself, but I really don't see why one set of sinners is any better or worse than another set of sinners when it comes to giving a loving, stable and financially adequate home to a child who wouldn't otherwise have had one.

quote:

---

Hence the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

Lending money and charging interest is called 'detestable' in the OT. It is a commandment that adulterers should be put to death.

What is 'natural' as opposed to 'Biblical' thinking? Are we into dualism here?

quote:

---

This is supposed to be a Christian discussion forum. How we feel or what the world sees as being OK is absolutely nothing to do with this subject, or any other subject that we discuss on this board.

---

The abolition of slavery had just a little bit to do with how people felt and what was seen as okay, didn't it?

Now if you've never looked at a woman and fancied her, or felt angry with someone, then yes, by Jesus' criteria you are way ahead of me. I've committed both murder and adultery lots of times!! (Never physically, but then that didn't seem to matter to Jesus!)

But having had emergency laser surgery to both retinas, I have a pretty good idea of how it feels to have a log removed from your eye!

When she started dating, she had absolutely no desire whatsoever to sleep with the boys she went out with. "Wow, what a good Christian I am," she thought. "Not a lustful thought anywhere in sight. It's so easy.

Then she discovered she was gay.

First she tried to deny her sexuality. That didn't work. Then she tried to deny her faith. That didn't work either. For a long time, she was depressed; she was a living paradox.

Eventually, she took a week off work and prayed very hard indeed. She prayed very hard that God would take charge of the situation and show her what he wanted.

Well, it turned out that God wanted her just the way she was. In that week she rethought much of her theology, but came out of that experience a much, much happier person. Not long after that, she got her first girlfriend.

All of which is a side issue to the main question, which is: Should gays be allowed to adopt?

What I would consider before anything is this: why are said children potentially being adopted by a gay couple being adopted at all?

Children are not given up for adoption lightly.

Which is worse? Being brought up by two gay "sinners" (note: this is not my position on this), or being brought up by two heterosexuals who abuse (rape, torture, e.t.c.) their child? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't those sins too?

Being brought up by two gay "sinners", or being brought up by a head of an institution that abuses his/her charges? Again, aren't rape and other forms of abuse sins in the Biblical sense?

I'd go with the two gay people, whether I thought they were sinners because they were gay, or not.

Because, let's face it, all forms of abuse are sins, too, and so in the absolute, Biblical sense, there is no difference, and in the practical sense it would often be a whole lot better for the child.

Even if you think homosexuality is evil and wrong, so are murder, rape, torture, e.t.c., and these will cause physical harm as well. And most likely, an awful lot worse mental and spiritual harm.

So, perhaps the gay couple is not perfect. Is the Church perfect? Are you? First stones, anyone?

If adoption by a gay couple is better than the alternatives, why not?

Is it not the "search for perfection" way of considering people's suitability for adoption what leads to a blind man and his wife, who are loving, kind, caring, e.t.c., being rejected as adopters becuase "the child would miss out on things like playing ball with his father-figure"?

Surely, if the best offer is better than what the child has now...?

I am afraid I have strong feelings on this one, and I can't re-type this post anymore, so I hope it is o.k. ...