Thread: Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028502

---

Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
Hi
This is a copy of a post that was put on my uni bulletin boards, and I thought it would be good to get your opinion on the issue:

"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!!

dave 8o)
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
This is formal notice that I will only post to this thread in my official (officious, even) capacity as a host of Purgatory. I will not take a side in the discussion.

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.

The Ship's Third Commandment is particularly apt here: attack the issue, not the person. Please re-read it before you begin posting to this thread.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well i don't see why they shouldn't. i've heard all the arguments against, and i don't think any of 'em hold up.
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
I think this is going to turn ito a thread about rights and wrongs about homosexuality generally, but lets try to keep to the topic.

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.

But there may be one of course....
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
I third Nicole. Gosh, this is getting dull innit?
 

---

Posted by Bob R (# 322) on :
 
Hi,

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,

Bob R
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
Homosexuals can be parents. Fair enough it takes a third person to be involved.

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".

bb
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
in this case it takes a fourth person as well...
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
if we are talking couples, which i assumed...
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well it took my cousin nancy three people to have her twins (they were carried by a surrogate mother though they are biologically hers) so that doesn't prove anything anyway.
 

---

Posted by katie (# 116) on :
 
Incidentally I've just marked a set of exam questions on the topic - or rather on the topic "is having a nontraditional family psychologically damaging". It's not my speciality but I do know a few of the facts.

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.

Katie
 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 
First of all a ‘natural family’ consisting solely of parents and children is quite a modern invention and not especially natural. A wider group consisting of unmarried or widowed uncles, aunts and cousins, grandparents and other in-laws plus the occasional, unrelated odd-bod thrown in for good measure, is far more like it.

Of course, the only people allowed to adopt children should be healthy, young (but not too young), morally unimpeachable (but not self-righteous), firm (but not too strict), loving (but not too needy or sentimental) intelligent and creative (but not overly-committed) AND above all well-balanced. In fact, NOBODY should be allowed to adopt children or even raise their own – we’re all far too deeply flawed. Indeed, as Philip Larkin said, “They……..” No, perhaps not (discretion is the better part of valour).
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

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.

Louise
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
What about a 'normal' family where they lock the kids in a cupboard until they've eaten as much of the wall as they can manage? (About two and a half days)

Is that better, because the parents are straight??
 

---

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
Much as I hate to weigh in with the majority, I'd like to point out the serious flaw with the argument from "natural" families such as Bob's.

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.

This limits the options for adoption quite alarmingly.
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
A significant issue in the case of adoption can be the age and relationship of the child to the adopting adult.

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.

Just an incomplete thought...
 

---

Posted by Karl (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Even if you are an atheist and believe in evolution

---

Care to back up that assertion that folk who accept evolution are atheists, me old china?
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
All I would like to say on this subject is that if I ever had any children, I would want my sister (who is a lesbian) to be their guardian in the event of my death. I know that she would provide them with a loving home and try to bring them up well.

Jane R
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
The ideal arrangement for a child is living with two happily married parents and surrounded by an extended family and a large group of friends. The reality is can sometimes be very different.

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.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Dani (# 494) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by TC (# 70) on :
 
Dani,

What do you mean by secular thinking?

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

TC...
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
Hey Dani,
I think I see what you mean - but personally I believe that as a Christian my thoughts are... my thoughts. Who I am has been vastly influenced by the Bible - AND by other's interpretation and teaching, and I'm working really hard to see which is which.

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.

After all you can make a pretty good argument for people with interest-bearing bank accounts being total anathema to the Lord if you look at the right OT passages.....
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
In 'the world', of course. In the body of Christ, for an openly practicing homosexual, of course not.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

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.

For example, I hold with the Quaker understanding that scripture is one part of the revelation of the Word (that is, Jesus) but that that revelation is ongoing, to be interpreted and applied with guidance of the spirit of God within each person. So holding, I would personally not find an argument that "the bible says X" to be a final or decisive one.
 

---

Posted by Dani (# 494) on :
 
I'm an evangelical Christian. For me that means the Bible is my authority in life. Sure I draw upon my experience, my logic and reason and those institutions around me, but the Bible is my life-guide. I believe the Bible makes some things very clear. One of those things is sinfulness.

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.

Just my 2 cents.
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
Well that is a reasonable reaction to what we have written, Dani. And I suppose youhave hit on why a lot of us are here. I bet I'm not the only ex-Evangelical on this Ship. Trouble is, you see, Life Hits.

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.

 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Dani, You question whether what 'qualifies as sinfulness changes as our society and experiences change'

Do you consider polygamy or slave-holding to be sins ? Yet both are OK in large parts of the Bible

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

cheers,
Louise
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I always have a problem with the "Bible is my only guide" argument from conservative Christians.
So why don't you keep a Kosher kitchen?
If you have fertility problems, perhaps your husband should impregnate your maidservant? The one who sleeps on the floor at the foot of your bed?
Let's go back to considering menstruating women "unclean" and insist that they remove themselves from society?

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 know I'm leaving myself open to particular corrections (I'm no Bible scholar!). But I seriously don't understand how conservative Christians can study the Bible in such detail; pick and choose which parts they want to believe in; and then claim that they believe in every word of it as God's truth.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I realized I didn't address the main topic.

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.

But while the Bible in places condemns homosexual activity (along with many other things), it doesn't seem to make any judgements about what sort of people should be involved in raising children. It focuses, instead, on HOW the children should be raised. The emphasis seems to be on the lessons to be taught, and the assumption is that these lessons will be the result of the behavior of the community in which the child lives. Even in our "nuclear family" civilization, children are generally exposed to many more influences that just their household.
 

---

Posted by Steve_R (# 61) on :
 

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."

That deals with the dietary laws. As for the other parts of the law as set forth in Leviticus, we have had some fun discussions on that in the past as we will, no doubt, here and in the future.
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
My response is based on the fact that most parents seek to be “good enough”. They try to love and nurture the children in the care, teach them skills they’re going to need for life and don’t abuse or manipulate etc.

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.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
yes, the discussion seems to have wandered off from the question. even if you assume that homosexuality is a sin (and i don't, but thats besides the point), well, aren't we as christians assuming that we're ALL sinners? so why is their sin any worse or any more of a reason to stop them from adopting children? i mean, i certainly HOPE that no one here is going to argue that only christians should be allowed to adopt children....
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
Nicole - you mean we should allow Others to adopt?
 

---

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

And that's fine surely. Don't we believe that God is incarnate in the world and therefore God's holy spirit is at work in 'secular' situations and inspires human beings who care for one another and think rationally and sensitively about how they should live? Som many fundamentalists seem to me to have a very narrow idea of God - one who issues dictats to 'true believers' butwho isn't really involved in guiding the vast majority of human beings.
 

---

Posted by asher (# 97) on :
 
Not quite sure I understand the split between sacred and secular thinking...it seems to imply a low doctrine of creation..

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

Asher
 

---

Posted by big g (# 407) on :
 
to go against the grain of current thinking which is dominating this thread. I do not agree that homosexual parents are the best to adopt.
some have argued about the situation with a toss up between two gay (btw just to start some more discussion, should what you think your sexaulity is be your identity? ie i don't exactly go around saying "hi i'm big g and i'm a heterosexual"-discuss if you wish) people you wish the best in love for the kid or heterosexua couple who are evil in intention. In reality it wouldn't be a toss up.
I have taken this viewpoint for several reasons. in the bible both in the old testament and new testanment homosexuality is treated as sin. Most applicable for today (so not to get confused with stuff with the law etc) is the NT stuff, in romans 2 or 3 ( i think) Paul described men having men and women having women as shameful. I am not convinced by the theologies that try to twist that and other verses to say homosexuality is ok. Perhaps for once it means what it says! Also in genesis it was adam and eve becoming one, not adam and steve! (sorry to use a cliche!) My view is that the bible points to sex and having children in the ideal situation being for a man and a women, firstly coz it takes a man and woman to have a child, not 2 men or 2 women
Secondly on a more social view, i beleive a child will miss out on the diffrent inputs that come from a father and a mother in his/her childhood if they have two mothers or two fathers. I beleive that a mother will input different things in different ways into a childs life to that which a father will. therefore the ideal situation would be both a father and a mother.


well i better stop, i've said enough to get some heated replies. this is not politically correct is it? quel dommage

in him whose grace is sufficient even for me!
big g
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

But.. given the choice, which is more desirable - two adults around or a fraught single parent?
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
If you take Genesis as your guide to what's normal, big G, what on earth do you make of Tamar dressing as a prostitute to trick her father in law into sex or Lot and his daughters? Or indeed Lot offering his daughters to be gang-raped by the angry crowd in Sodom?

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!

Louise
 

---

Posted by Red Kite (# 372) on :
 
There is rather a lot here about adults and God very little about children's needs or research evidence.

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.

Legally only a married couple or a single person can adopt and Adoption Bill does not address same sex couples adopting - Labour ducks it again.
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
Great post Louise!

Aye, right!! (Non-ironically)
 

---

Posted by Red Kite (# 372) on :
 
I wasn't bluffing there is more at stake than that ..

r
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
Sorry Red Kite that appears whenever I answer a post... unlesss I do this [clicks box].

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.

I think the original worries often stem from a misplaced association of homosexuality and paedophilia, but DERRRR... Hopefully society is getting beyond such naive thinking... Hopefully...
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 
Oooops! Clicked the wrong box in my hurry...
 

---

Posted by Bob R (# 322) on :
 
OK folks I have tried an approach based on natural (as opposed to biblical) thinking and you have pointed out the flaws in those arguments. I accept that there are flaws in my argument but then you would expect that would't you? After all I'm only human.

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.

Yours in Christ.
 

---

Posted by SteveWal (# 307) on :
 
I'm staying out of this discussion in the main, but I think you'll find that the Biblical issues are not quite as clear cut as you think... They never are, I'm afraid...

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

I'm heading for the hills...
 

---

Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
I'm so tempted to write a long and shouty reply to Bob R, but I'm not going to, as I might get sent to hell.

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.

And I will just say again - Bob, please be ever so careful how you tackle the issues you're getting into here. People have been badly hurt on these boards by others trying to 'gently' show them what the bible says and particularly by trying to change them. You're not talking to people face to face and intentions can be misunderstood.
 

---

Posted by Gill (# 102) on :
 

quote:

---

Hence the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

Nope - lack of hospitality. And rape. Look again.

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.

---

Not only supposed to be, it IS! You are being exposed to people who think differently from you and aren't living by your own .sig...

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!

Over to you. But please, be NICE to people! Otherwise they'll never agree with you...
 

---

Posted by rewboss (# 566) on :
 
Friend of mine was a very, er, conservative Christian who believed that gay people were, well, bad people, and God hated them.

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?

Well, if they're good parents, why not? There are plenty of heterosexual parents who are the most apalling role models around, why should sexual orientation make a difference?
 

---

Posted by shadow-lover (# 157) on :
 
Here's my two lira's worth...

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. ...

The Shadow Lover
 

---

Posted by Luna (# 2002) on :
 
Regarding the rather contrived either/or of abusive heterosexuals vs. loving homosexuals...

I'm of the opinion that such an "alternative" doesn't bear much relevance to the issue at hand, seeing how the pool of available children is usually much smaller than a couple would hope and the bad applicants get weeded out.

More realistic options for the kid in question (assuming he has been so lucky as to survive to birth):

be raised singlehandedly by a biological parent;

be adopted by a single parent (gay or straight);

be adopted by a heterosexual couple;

be adopted by a homosexual couple.

We're assuming the child can't remain with a biological parent. Having never met a single adoptive parent, I don't imagine that scenario is very common. Which leaves us with the heterosexual couple (of which a very small percentage may be abusive) and the homosexual couple (of which a very small percentage may be abusive as well).

All things being equal (eg suitable homes, competent folks), and seeing how it has been established that children raised by homosexuals are just as ab/normal as the rest of us, I would say the only question is whether a child benefits most from having parents of both sexes.

Regardless of the answer (and regardless of the couple), I say two heads are better than one. And a permanent home beats foster care anyday.

So I guess my reply is - Sure, why not?
 

---

Posted by Luna (# 2002) on :
 
Oops, sorry about the double post, but I just had a small epiphany.

One "why not" may be the fact that there isn't a legal provision for permanent unions among homosexual couples (I'm not trying to bring up another subject, really!). I don't think an unmarried heterosexual couple is allowed to adopt a child, and I definitely would not advocate that. Hmmm...
 

---

Posted by mysticlisa (# 2867) on :
 
It seems the discussion here has gotten quite hung up on the pros and cons of homosexuality... rather than the fitness to parent. Back in my private practice days I was asked to interview a child and several adults to assist a court in determining custody of the child. The child's biological mother had died, and the mother's lesbian partner was seeking to adopt. Unfortunately, the biological grandparents were suing for custody on the grounds of the partner's "immoral" lifestyle. There was also a black heterosexual couple interested in adopting, as the child was of mixed race, and pressure was on to place children of color in culturally appropriate homes. As I interviewed each of the individuals involved, I wasn't surprized to see that a case could be made for or against each one. My recommendation was based on what I believed was best for the child... In this case, the child had an established, stable relationship with her mother's partner. The woman was emotionally healthy, financially able to provide, and committed to raising this child. She should be allowed to adopt? Definitely. Do I believe any homosexual should be allowed to adopt. Definitely not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
Of course, the only people allowed to adopt children should be healthy, young (but not too young), morally unimpeachable (but not self-righteous), firm (but not too strict), loving (but not too needy or sentimental) intelligent and creative (but not overly-committed) AND above all well-balanced. In fact, NOBODY should be allowed to adopt children or even raise their own – we’re all far too deeply flawed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child...The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads.

---

What a gross generalization! Are you saying all women are tenderhearted and cautious and that all men are disciplinarians and risk takers... by nature?!?!

I only have one response to such stereotyping:

 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
hear, hear, mysticlisa.
 

---

Posted by zealous convert (# 1996) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child.

If love is like water and wisdom like sun, then the youngsters need a balance of both. The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads. This is the way it's supposed to be. Now I'll have some critics saying a mom can certainly make her kids mind, and a dad can certainly give tenderness to his children, and I'm not arguing that point. But on the whole both characters fit the role model, and on the whole it is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child.

If love is like water and wisdom like sun, then the youngsters need a balance of both. The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads. This is the way it's supposed to be. Now I'll have some critics saying a mom can certainly make her kids mind, and a dad can certainly give tenderness to his children, and I'm not arguing that point. But on the whole both characters fit the role model, and on the whole it is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

From a more spiritual perspective: Most people in the after-life would really hate thier self-images being effectid in negative ways considering they live forever there. It's obvious most of them then would hate the thought of being adopted by homosexuals. I think people should perhaps be a bit more patient, and stop thinking so much about production rather than safety. All it takes is a little enlightenment. But not to much considering the effects of Overdrive.

---

huh? is it me, or does this make no sense whatsoever?
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Welcome aboard, Hyperdrive - we rarely see new shipmates this far down in the bowels of the Ship!

I'm afraid though that Nicolemrw's post is reasonable - I think I understand the first part of your post (to the effect that children adopted by homosexuals are going to be unhappy about it for all eternity) even though I don't agree.

The second part, however, from 'I think people should be a bit more patient', has gone right over my head. Could you unpack it bit for me please, and explain the reference to 'Overdrive'?

Always willing to continue a good discussion
 

---

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :
 
Not exactly adoption, but relevent, all the same I think is this research study which found that:

"Children born to lesbian women using donor sperm seem to be as well-adjusted as those brought up by heterosexual couples. "

I'm not sure Belgium is particularly feted for it's tolerance towards same sex couples, so one could expect these children to have had the possibility for homophobia as any here, or in the USA.

My own theory on the subject -lesbians, who have to go through an awful lot more work to have a child - are more likely to be stable, loving parents and provide a supportive atmosphere for what is, after all, a very much wanted child.

Peace,
Kirsti
 

---

Posted by Hyper Drive (# 2935) on :
 
RE: TonyK.

This person did not say they would be unhappy for all eternity. It's just that obviously people there would be keen about image for obvious reasons. RE: Explain what you mean by, "... the effects of "Overdrive"... :
Some studies show a startleling metamorphisis in people when they focus on certain images:

1. There eyes begin to water

2. They start coughing and laughing at the same time

3. They begin to call thier son's names

4. Their mustaches turn green
 

---

Posted by dks (# 2849) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob R:


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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miss Dree-Saint:
weird deviates.

---

As opposed, presumably, to non-weird deviates.
 

---

Posted by MR PINK (# 2979) on :
 
As someone who is A) adopted
B) A parent
C) Homosexual

I've followed this with some interest.

Wether one type of person is better than another type of person in bringing up a child is a moot point. I was apdopted at three months & never knew my "birth" mother (nor do I want to) while my realtionship with my parents hasn't been a bed of roses I know deep down they love me as they would of if they had me via the usual method.

When I was married adoption was one of the paths we considered due to the fact that my wife & I had trouble concieving & this wasn't anything to do with the fact that I was Gay (thats a another story) however while we really wanted a child we wouldn't of been able to adopt due to other factors (age,size of house being two plus the fact that one of us would of had to give up work meaning our income wouldn't have been sufficent to meet the criteria set. The fact that everyone says that we are both good parents just goes to prove that what "society" isn't always right.

There is also the thing about Biological clocks in the case of Lesbians which explains the lenghts some will go to. I have to say that while I'd of been happier if I'd known what I was when I was younger (I knew I liked Sex but couldn't woork out why I wasn't enjoying it) I have always had the desire to leave my mark on the world via a son & hier (or in my case a daughter too).
 

---

Posted by dks (# 2849) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Okay, what's the Greek word for effeminate?

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by likeness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miss Dree-Saint:
weird deviates.

---

As opposed, presumably, to non-weird deviates.

---

Actually, you're pretty close to right.

Dennis was deviate for many years, but not really weird. (In the I gotta wave my hinny down main street in some kinda 'pride' parade in a leather thong kinda way.)

 

---

Posted by Hyper Drive (# 2935) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dks:
Well the Greek for effeminate is malakoi which is seperate from the Greek for homosexual, which is arsenokoitai . In 1Cor 6:9 above this is translated as 'abusers of themselves', not a particularly good translation.

---

!

Not to take a shot at , but IMAGE, man. For the image of the bible it is a perfectly reasonable translation.

Further translation parrallel : A disrespect to ones self image is indeed a moral infraction/sin.

(edited to fix quote)

[ 07 July 2002, 14:53: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 

---

Posted by Hils (# 2251) on :
 
I have not studied all the posts on this subject so apologies if i repeat something someone else has already said!
I am adopted myself and so this subject is obviously very close to my heart.
Personally i feel that there is enough stigma from society towards adopted people already and don't feel that there needs to be anymore by putting children in to a family which isn't regaded by all of society as 'normal'
I was put into a wonderfully loving family with many benefits I wouldn't have had if my birth mother had kept me, but I have had real trouble accepting my own identity despite having had lots of love and support from both church and family.
Why make growing up any harder than it all ready is in this day and age
 

---

Posted by dks (# 2849) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hyper Drive:
[QB Not to take a shot at , but IMAGE, man. For the image of the bible it is a perfectly reasonable translation.

Further translation parrallel : A disrespect to ones self image is indeed a moral infraction/sin.

(edited to fix quote)[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luna:
Having never met a single adoptive parent, I don't imagine that scenario is very common.

---

Sorry it's taken me so so long to notice this thread. Hi Luna.. pleased to meet you! There are three single adoptive parents that I know of in my neck of the woods, and I'm one of them!
 

---

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :
 
I am not sure quite how I feel following this recent Lords debate and the comments of the likes of Anne Widdecombe on Question Time. Some of them reeled off a whole load of statistics to make their “point”. Statistics are good way of burying human beings and a good way of delineating society into “us” and “them”. From what or whom do these people think they are “protecting children”? From me it would seem – that is how they view me – a threat to children and, by implication, a threat to society. Do I actually have any vested interest in society as a whole? Should I care about it at all? I don’t know. I am not at all sure it is remotely interested in my community, or that it really wants us to play any kind of role in it.

I think we are strangers cut off in a foreign land.
 

---

Posted by MR PINK (# 2979) on :
 
I think the question should be "is there No sutch thing as Society" & why does this have sutch a familar ring to it.

As to Merseymike's comment after an incident at work yesterday I don't think anyone should expect the right to have children by whatever means.
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Well, this is a hard thread for me to post on for reasons close to my heart.

On the issue of whether single people can adopt - they can, and many do.

The law as it currently stands does not stop adoption into a homosexual couple's home, in the same way that it does not stop adoption into the home of an unmarried couple. The issue is that in an unmarried situation (gay or straight) only one partner can formally adopt. There can be a change in legal status for the other partner to be legally recognised as having a role in the child's life, but not full parental responsibility.

I think we need to consider the needs of the children far more highly than the desires of prospective adopters.

There seems to be some confusion about which children are placed for adoption these days. In spite of the prevailing understanding, very few children are placed for adoption because they have been orphaned, and only about 200 babies are given up for adoption by (predomininantly teenage) mums who can't cope.

Most of the 5,000 children seeking new families (of the 20,000 or so children in the care system) have been removed from thier birth parents becasue of neglect or abuse.

These children have suffered greatly, both through the neglect/abuse, and though the moves they have had, often traumatically.

The question to me is this - is it right to take a child who has been emotionally/physically, or sexually abused, suffered many moves (often more than 15 different homes before being adopted) and suffered the bereavement of the loss of thier birth family, and to place them in a situation where they will face further stigmatism, bullying or other forms of victimisation - make no mistakes, it happens.

I think Hils post should be read very carefully.

Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt as a couple? I don't think so.
 

---

Posted by Clyde (# 752) on :
 
MatrixUK,
Your post and that of 'Hils' have pusuaded me to the view that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I'm sure that many can provide a loving home but I now believe that the interests of the child are not best served by being placed in such a position.
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MatrixUK:
The question to me is this - is it right to take a child who has been emotionally/physically, or sexually abused, suffered many moves (often more than 15 different homes before being adopted) and suffered the bereavement of the loss of thier birth family, and to place them in a situation where they will face further stigmatism, bullying or other forms of victimisation - make no mistakes, it happens.

---

Being the child (adopted or natural) of a mixed-race couple can also place them in a sistuation where the above will occur. So should we not place children in a mixed race home?

Sieg
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Current social services, (and most independant agencies') policy is indeed to place children of dual heritage (mixed race is not a great phrase, and they avoid it)with families of dual heritage.

It is very unusual to place a child for adoption with a family of differing ethnic backgound.

This is argued on two grounds, the first being the one outlined above, with the hope of minimising further unwanted attention (and let's face it, if life's been crap so far why put a child or children in a position of almost guaranteed unwanted attention - most adopted kids just want to be "normal").

The second reason is that a family of the same ethnic backgound will help the child to grow up in, and embrace their heritage as much as possible.

Now we might argue that parents of a differing ethnic backround may be able to actively develop the child's sense of cultural heritage - and indeed those rare occasions when it happens are because parents have convinced social workers they can - but that is the policy.

I guess it takes ua little off the thread, but might have something to say to the subject in more than one way perhaps.

The bottom line for me is this - is the child's best interst served by being placed in an environment where they will experience more discrimination or not.

On another subject - one might argue that the security that children who have experienced so much disruption need, is best provided in a relationship where the couple are at least married....
 

---

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :
 
I get the impression that some people are not exactly living in the real world here.

Although the question originally put was “should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?” I would suggest that this question is in itself a hypothetical non-issue. For one very simple reason – homosexuals ALREADY ARE allowed to adopt children and have done so in reasonable numbers.

Therefore the scenario of a gay or lesbian couple raising adopted children is NOT hypothetical or about the future. It is a reality of society as it already is today. Not only that but the advent of IVF treatment has meant that large numbers of lesbian couples ARE having children and raising them as a lesbian partnership. This is not a “what if” scenario at all, some people here appear to be under the illusion that it is. In the UK during 2002 a total of 8,000 lesbian couples signed-up for IVF treatment with a view to becoming parents and raising children with their partners – many of whom have already received treatment. That is the real world situation. You only have to go on to a gay issues website and look under the parenting section & you’ll see dozens of lesbian couples every month looking for gay men to act as sperm donors.

There is no issue to discuss as to whether or not gays and lesbians are “allowed” to have children. The fact is that they have them already & will increasingly have them in future. The only question is therefore how society accommodates such family units. If we are saying the children who are raised by such family units will face prejudice and bullying in schools then society clearly has a duty to change social attitudes to ensure that this does not happen. A key element in so doing will be to ensure that homosexual families are presented in a positive light by the education system and that children are encouraged to accept such family units as a normal part of mainstream society. This naturally would mean getting rid of section 28 in the UK for a start. If we really cared about the wellbeing of children then these are the issues we need to start addressing.

One thing is for certain, during the next 5-10 years we will see a substantial number of children entering the school system who ARE being raised by homosexual family units (predominantly by lesbian couples).

The only technical issue relates to whether or not the partners of the official adopter and/or the mother/father are also allowed to adopt the child. I think if we wish to ensure that these family units are as stable as possible then the only option would be to encourage partners to adopt as well and have a joint stakehold in raising the child. To further promote the stability of such units gay marriage should ideally be an option.

One final point. I know someone who was raised entirely in a succession of care and foster homes. He is very angry that some people are still arguing that children should not be adopted by gay couples in this day and age. He would say that it is all very well for people to pontificate from their armchairs but if any of them had ever actually been raised in care they would know that gay adoption is infinitely preferable to being shunted around the system as he was. He is a heterosexual, working class man BUT he says he would have given anything to have been raised by a couple of loving gay men rather than live through the unloving upbringing that he actually endured.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Excellent post, Paul

And today - much to my surprise - the House of Lords voted to pass the Children and Adoptiuon Bill which allows gay and unmarried heterosexual couples to become joint adopters.

Also,under the Human Rights Act, same sex partners have been given the right to succeed to tenancies. This could open the way for further reform and recognition of same sex relationships - and not before time

Now, when is the Church going to catch up ?
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
When is the church going to catch up?

Well, I guess if all the Church were as convinced as you seem to be that same-sex relationships are fine then soon. However, as I am sure you are aware, the majority of the Christian community are not so sure.

So, perhaps it's not an issue of churches catching up, but standing firm perhaps?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
And becoming more and more marginal and irrelevant to people's lives, as they 'stand firm' for prejudice and discrimination.

No wonder 93% of people never go near a church.
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
If the church really believed it was Discrimination and prejudice then they'd be opposed.

Of course it is by the world's standards, but most of us aren't convinced it is by God's standards.

I'm not in favour of discrimination. I am in favour of the Values of the Kingdom of God. And i am aware that we are in the midst of a discussion that is not finished yet.

Hearts need to be won, as well as arguments. And i'm not sure that God want's our hearts to be won by the prevailing cultural norms.

There may be a greater liberty standing against them sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
(MatrixUK: like the sig!)

I think this must be a very difficult issue represented as it is by two apparently incompatible understandings of what scripture says about homosexuality. Over the years I have changed my stance on their interpretation from the fairly conservatively orthodox (small 'o') to a much more liberal understanding.

I find very little in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for example, which reflects a same-sex relationship founded on genuine love and respect. The S&G story is a nasty tale of abuse of sexual power, ie potential rape and lasciviousness. It's compounded by the cultural mores of the time - cultural mores which arguably may no longer be applicable in our culture.

From my (admittedly not exhaustive) studies I understand that virtually all sexual acts had to tend towards the possibility of procreation; anything else being ruled out as not pleasing to God who had given the command 'go forth and multiply'. In a time when lots of little male babies were needed to establish the strength and power of a nation or a city this was understandable; though as I've just said culturally bound. But nevertheless the S&G story does not major on the sinfulness of a loving consentual monogamous same-sex relationship, in fact, it has nothing helpful to say whatsoever to this scenario; but centres on at the very least an abuse of the sacredness of hospitality, and at worst the abuse of sexual power.

The passage in Romans similarly doesn't say much, to my mind, that is helpful about a loving monogamous etc same-sex relationship; but refers to men and women who swap 'natural' relations for unnatural relations. I know some scholars and one or two early church Fathers (Aquinas?) who interpreted this from the classically Greek position that because men and women were physically engineered for each other it was 'natural' and 'good' that they should have relationship with each other; in the same way that a woman was engineered for giving birth and therefore a 'good' woman was someone who had children etc because she had fulfilled the function for which her body fitted her.

Again, I'm not sure if we need be tied to the cultural priorities of other ages. In a way, it's a bit like constructing our 'truth' from the cultural conveniences of another era.

Actually, where would we stop with an argument that says it is our anatomy that should determine our sexuality? If a woman and a man are 'naturally' made for each other (and indeed if we're into procreation and/or heterosexuality this would be the 'norm'), but no other combination is permissible, founded on the notion of what fits where; then wouldn't we find our sexual expression, even within those 'legitimate' boundaries, a little limited? I still have vivid memories of a Christian book on sex stating categorically that vaginas were not made with fingers in mind! Nor mouths for... well, you get the picture

There must be more to it than mere anatomy!

Final note on homosexuals who can't be parents. I must remember to say that to a lesbian friend of mine who has two (biological) children from her first marriage - sadly none from her second, as she was widowed before that was possible (now, you can't say she didn't try the heterosexual thing!) - and who raises these delightful, intelligent kids in a stable, loving Christian home, with a partner who is totally committed to their family. I think to suggest that to place an adoptive child in an environment such as this would be harmful, immoral or not pleasing to God is just plain silly.
 

---

Posted by Frisbeetarian (# 6808) on :
 
Just any homosexual person shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, just like just any heterosexual person wouldn't.
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
A very good point Frisbeetarian, but I think the main argument in this thread is whether, as a matter of principle, homosexuals ought to be allowed to adopt. Your post seems to imply that you think they should be if they are suitable - is this your position?
 

---

Posted by Frisbeetarian (# 6808) on :
 
Absolutely! Anyone - regardless of sexuality - who has the love and resources (eg home and finances) to raise a child should by all means be able to adopt.
 

---

Posted by Girl with the pearl earring (# 9151) on :
 
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating anyone else.

I don't think that people's sexuality should affect their suitability for adopting children. If they can provide a loving family for the child, then great, it's just what a child needs.
Unfortunately, I do think that society's response to people's sexuality can cause problems in the welfare of children adopted by homosexuals. Because many people, very sadly, are prejudiced, it can mean that children who are adopted by homosexual parents can be horribly teased by their peers because of their 'abnormal' family background. The question is, to what extent does this affect the child's welfare? It is horrible, and wrong, than the reaction of society should prevent people from adopting children, but unfortunately it can be the case that children are made very unhappy by bullying from their peers, and this has to be taken into consideration.
Hopefully one day (and one day soon) we will reach a stage where society is loving enough to accept people regardless of sexuality, and this isn't an issue, but unfortunatley it's all too real for some children, and they come to resent their adopted (or biological, but since become homosexual) parents because of reactions from their peers.
This is in no way a reflection on the prospective parents, but a very sad relic of the values of some people in society.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I act as local secretary for the Children's Society. Although they only put children with homosexual couples where that is the best solution for the child, there was a lot of bad publicity about a recent case. Several people who used to support the children's society then said they wanted to give up; even one of the local churches cancelled its support because the PCC voted against it on this issue.
 

---

Posted by GrandRoach (# 9614) on :
 
NO...just No!!Its just wrong
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrandRoach:
NO...just No!!Its just wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrandRoach:
NO...just No!!Its just wrong

---

Exactly my response to the English National Opera's introduction of surtitles. And your point?

---

Surtitles are just an excuse for bad singing

They're behind the times anyway. The future is small screens on the backs of seats like at the Met.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Agree with you about the bad singing. When the small screens become universal nobody will need to look at the stage. Which might be a puzzler for some of our more 'adventurous' producers.

ETA: this isn't a digression at all: it's a stereotypical dinner table discussion at the home of Kevin and his two daddies.

[ 13. June 2005, 10:27: Message edited by: Amos ]
 

---

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :
 
it should not be a matter of their sexuality but how they care for their children if it is a good or a bad home
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Good God, you are an unexpected bundle of enigmatic complexities, riverfalls!
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
Absolutely! Anyone - regardless of sexuality - who has the love and resources (eg home and finances) to raise a child should by all means be able to adopt.

---

Oh - "finances" rules me out. Which is a pity, since I've been doing it (er, raising children ) eight times over for 21 years.

[ETA .. but I guess they weren't adopted, so maybe being broke don't matter]

[ 28. March 2006, 21:25: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I know many gay couples with kids who seem to be as well adjusted as any others. Despite some of the right-wing hype, you can't catch homosexuality, nor is there any evidence that kids at more risk of being molested by gay parents than straight ones.

As for the Bible quotes:

Sodom and Gomorrah was an act of potential gang rape of a visitor, the ultimate act of inhospitality.

Leviticus is part of the Mosaic covenant so doesn't apply to non-Jews and literally refers to anal sex in a public/cult prostitution context since according to Jewish law: 1) there had to be at least two eyewitnesses to the crime; 2) testimony of somebody knowing of the planned crime, who warned the defendant in advance not to commit the crime and informed him of the possible death sentence; 3) witness to confirm the warning and 4) finally, a non-unanimous vote by the court to execute, because a unanimous vote suggested a mob mentality and was not accepted.

Romans is discussing cult prostitution (see v. 22 and 25).

No one has agreed on the translation of "arsenokoitai" over the centuries in 1 Corinthians. Martin Luther thought that it condemned paedophiles.
 

---

Posted by Yish (# 11115) on :
 
Sorry but I think most of this is rubbish. As a gay man I can say that the reason I think it's a bad idea for most (not all) gay couples to adopt kids is this, if the world was a different place, where nobody judged anybody else then great, go ahead, adopt. But the world isn't like that. I would love to have children, but I think that, if I did, they would be subject to teasing and taunting in school and this is not fair on them. Having children is not some kind of G-d given right, it's a serious consideration which everyone, straight or gay, should really think about very carefully.

Of course gay parents are perfectly capable of making equally good parents to straight people but that's not really the problem is it? The problem is, how do those children get perceived in school or anywhere else? I wouldn't want to inflict that on any child personally, much as I'd love to have children of my own. This is not a political thing or even a theological thing, it's about the children. That's all it's about. The Children. If gay couples adopt children then I would support their right to do so but I just wouldn't do it personally.

Children are a gift from G-d and shouldn't be used as a political tool to further personal goals.

I would love us to all live in a world where nobody judged anybody else and everyone was free to live their life in whatever way they wanted, but we don't live in that kind of world, I just wish we did. And, until we do, I won't be adopting any children.

That's my take on it any way.

[ 29. March 2006, 01:40: Message edited by: Yish ]
 

---

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yish:
... they would be subject to teasing and taunting in school and this is not fair on them. ...

---

quote:

---

I've thought about this for a very long time, I'd have liked to adopt kids but wouldn't for the reasons I've already given. Yes, it's wrong, yes, the world should change. But, until it does, I think my argument holds up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

I don't think that holds water, but let me make sure I get what you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong.) You seem to be saying that the only moral argument against gay adoption is that social disapproval will make life excessively difficult for the children of said couple, the taunting, beating, etc that they will endure in school conclusively outweigh any "right" that the couple has to adopt, or the fact that the people who disapprove do so for entirely wrong reasons.

In other words, if people approved of homosexual adoption, then it would be ok for homosexuals to adopt.

Now, I know of communities in this country where being black or hispanic is a social stigma. Are you saying that, in those areas, individuals should refrain from adopting black or hispanic children? Or even worse, black and hispanic people shouldn't have kids in those areas because the kids would just get a rough time growing up? It seems like you're allowing the wrong of society to restrict the right of the individual.

---

Let me make clear that I was making a personal statement on how I, as a gay man, feel about adopting. Possibly beginning my comments with "I think most of this is rubbish" wasn't the best of starts! [a bottle of wine, extreme tiredness and a talkative nature made me more bumptious than ususal and I apologise at the way it came out]

I don't think my points are the same as the racial discussion but there may be some similarities. For instance, I don't know how it goes in the UK or the USA but in Israel there's a lot of talk about whether people should be allowed to adopt or long-term foster children who come from ethnically different backgrounds to themselves. The arguments on either side are both quite persuasive. One wants to say "any child in need of a home should be allowed to go to any parents who can offer that child the love and stability it needs" but the argument is more complicated than that. There's also a question of whether parents of ethnically different backgrounds would have the ability to retain the child's own heritage. I don't know where I stand on this and, as this discussion is about gay adoption, I won't write more about it except to say I think there are some similarities but not very many.

I know that my views on this are not popular views and, if I was talking to someone with my professional hat on, I would be much more circumspect and pragmatic. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and I wouldn't judge anyone either way. In my OP I said that my comments didn't apply to all gay adoptions, I have seen very successful gay adoptions but I still have my worries about it.

I hope I didn't imply that people who object to gay adoption do so for "entirely the wrong reasons". The objections to gay adoptions come in all shapes and sizes, some are more valid than others IMHO.

I can see what you're saying and also what RuthW was saying but my own gut instinct has worries about the whole thing. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm a right wing meglomaniac (which is how I think my OP may have sounded!) I'm really very liberal! I'm always willing to change my mind and shall continue to read this thread with interest as I'm now questioning my views again and that's a healthy and good thing to do.

[Could we please have a "Silly Rabbi who talks too much" smiley? ]

Yish
 

---

Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
There are really two questions here aren't there? The first one is: Should gay people/couples be allowed to adopt? (To which my answer is yes.)

The next questions is should they adopt - and here I think Yish's arguments would come into consideration - especially for gay people in largely conservative or homophobic communities. But I do think it's a different question.
 

---

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Yish,

Well said. The community that a child is going to grow up in should be a major factor in any adopting couple's decision to adopt, and in some cases it might not be the wisest decision. Personally, I don't think the community should be allowed to completely ban any consideration of homosexual couples adopting, particularly in some areas where there seem to be more foster kids than adopting parents, but again, anyone who pretends that it isn't a factor could be setting themself up for a lot of trouble.

Cusanus said:

quote:

---

There are really two questions here aren't there? The first one is: Should gay people/couples be allowed to adopt? (To which my answer is yes.)

The next questions is should they adopt - and here I think Yish's arguments would come into consideration - especially for gay people in largely conservative or homophobic communities. But I do think it's a different question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yish:
For instance, I don't know how it goes in the UK or the USA but in Israel there's a lot of talk about whether people should be allowed to adopt or long-term foster children who come from ethnically different backgrounds to themselves.

---

quote:

---

Chook:
...non-predatory lesbian...
...non-predatory homosexual...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chook:
Homosexuality is, I have read, a gender identification disorder that develops in the first two or three years of life due to real, or perceived, non-acceptance of the child by the child's same sex parent. Therefore children who have failed to successfully pass through that developmental stage will continue to seek approval of themselves as a member of their sex from adults of that sex. With boys the problem is more severe because, at puberty, they are flooded with testosterone (the hormone of libido) and their desire for acceptance as a male can quickly be eroticised by predatory older males.

So that explains why homosexuals will often say that they have always felt attracted to people of the same sex. That also explains why children raised by heterosexual parents can easily become homosexual. Maybe a little girl isn't as pretty and girly as her (stupid/self-absorbed/bad) mother had hoped for. So she rejects her. Maybe a little boy isn't as rough and tumble as his (stupid/self-absorbed/bad) father had hoped for. So he rejects him. Or maybe something else is going on. I read one autobiography written by a homosexual man whose older brother was disabled. His father gave all his attention to the disabled brother and that seems to have been enough to convince him that he was not acceptable as a son.

It also seems to be important for girl children to have a father, or father figure, who accepts them as female because that gives them confidence that they will be acceptable to potential husbands. And vice versa for boy children.

So, in an ideal world where everyone is not stupid or self-absorbed or sinful I would expect that there would be no people struggling with homosexual identity so the question would not arise. But in the meantime I would think that children of both sexes would be better off being adopted by loving, accepting heterosexual couples. But if it's a choice between that and institutional care then I think the kindest thing would be to allow non-predatory lesbians with regular access to an appropriate father figure to adopt girls and to allow non-predatory male homosexuals with regular access to an appropriate mother figure to adopt boys.

How's that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:

quote:

---

Chook:
...non-predatory lesbian...
...non-predatory homosexual...

---

Is this the opposite of 'experienced lesbian' and 'practising homosexual'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Maybe you just don't know that this stuff derives from one of the world's most famous and most discredited atheist philosophies. But I suggest that if you want to discriminate against gay people that you have the courage of your convictions to say it's because you think the Bible tells you so, rather than dressing it up in this sort of psychobabble.

---

Masterful.
 

---

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chook:
But if it's a choice between that and institutional care then I think the kindest thing would be to allow non-predatory lesbians with regular access to an appropriate father figure to adopt girls and to allow non-predatory male homosexuals with regular access to an appropriate mother figure to adopt boys.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
why do I have an image of a cave man in matching leopardskins and Prada boots walking around looking for prey to drag back to his bachelor cave?

---

quote:

---

Well, ten out of ten for repeating neo-Freudian dogma, but please don't expect anyone who recognises this for what it is to take you seriously. Psychoanalytic theory based on Freud's original ideas of sexual development might have seemed cutting edge in the 1930s but it's been almost completely discarded as useless and damaging since then.

---

quote:

---

the ideal world you speak of, religious belief wouldn't exist either - if Freud's notions were true and we all developed ideally in accordance with them - we'd all be straight atheists.

Maybe you just don't know that this stuff derives from one of the world's most famous and most discredited atheist philosophies.

---

quote:

---

When I see religious conservatives using neo-Freudian nonsense to attack gay people I find it hugely ironic. I bet they wouldn't be amused to have their religious belief psychoanalysed in similar terms.

---

quote:

---

a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.

---

quote:

---

A lot of his assumptions that religion is untenable for modern rational people derives from his scientific positivism, which (in the form of his biologism) is just the substructure on which he builds his metapsychology, and he alwasy said that this was something of a stopgap until something better came along - albeit that he thought that that, too, would be a refined scientific positivism.

---

It's hardly a ringing endorsement. Religion is 'untenable for modern rational people'. I like your point about his feeling of 'wistfulness' about the impossibility of it, however we're still talking about descriptions of the etiology of religion which are dubious to say the best.

But I think you have a point, that he's neither so anti-religious nor as anti-gay as I thought. My view of him has probably been coloured by the neo-Freudians whose ghastly views are still being promoted in conservative religious circles.

L.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Fair enough, and sorry if I sounded picky. I have found Freudian understandings of religion, and especially the relationship bewteen Christianity and homosexuality, to be both enlightening and liberating. Maybe that's because of my trajectory into Freud, via H A Williams, whose Freudian re-reading of the Christian tradition arose out of his own crisis of faith and bervous breakdown. I find Williams a maddening mix of the staggeringly profound and staggeringly bathetic (Improving your game of tennis as resurrection!!) - and very sixties!

But as I say, my real concern is that if we don't take Freud seriously, the only constructive positions left are feminist/postmodern assertions about sexuality (many of which are covertly grounded in Freud, but in revolt against the archaic accidents of Freud's expression) or a quasi-biologistic essentialism which is not just wide open to refutation but really does risk reducing non-genital sexuality to deviation from a scientific norm. Do we really want to have human sexuality reduced to a sort of genetic fascism, whichever way it happens to swing?

The point about Freud's metapsychology being loosely nested inside his "biologism" is that it allows us to understand human beings as possessing a genuine "life of the psyche" which is not reducible to our animality. The relationship between sexuality and sublimation, sexuality and love - eros and agape, if you like - is crucially dependent on this. Give me Freud over Dawkins and (God help us! Desmond Morris any day.

The deeper point is that you can have Freud without the biologism. And at that point you suddenly get all the profoundly constructive themes in Freud that play constructively on religion. A superb book in this regard is DiCenso's The Other Freud.

As I say, I'm sorry if I seem to overreact. It's just that the Freudian tradition is so deeply vulnerable to misrepresentation, and yet so very rich in resources to understand who and what we are as human beings.

(It's also fascinating to discover how the clinical results of psychoanalysis have been systematically misrepresented. A very trenchant summary of this is to be found in Rob Weatherill's Cultural Collapse - though written from a more Kleinian perspective. Psychoanalysis has actually been systematically lied about, and that kind of treatment from the scientific establishment would be apt to make its aficonados a bit sensitive - if one couldn't sit back and marvel at the power of denial! )
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

But as I say, my real concern is that if we don't take Freud seriously, the only constructive positions left are feminist/postmodern assertions about sexuality (many of which are covertly grounded in Freud, but in revolt against the archaic accidents of Freud's expression) or a quasi-biologistic essentialism which is not just wide open to refutation but really does risk reducing non-genital sexuality to deviation from a scientific norm. Do we really want to have human sexuality reduced to a sort of genetic fascism, whichever way it happens to swing?

---

quote:

---

Psychoanalysis has actually been systematically lied about, and that kind of treatment from the scientific establishment would be apt to make its aficonados a bit sensitive - if one couldn't sit back and marvel at the power of denial! )

---

That's an extremely drastic claim to make. If you have proof of this, then you should post it, but rather than derail this thread, I suggest you start a specific Freud thread somewhere.

L.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Louise - I didn't and don't want to start a separate thread. My concern was to challenge unsustainable and seriously misleading statements made on this thread about Freud. I'll say this, then I'm done here. If you wish to start a separate thread on Freud, please do so.

I'm not holding up two "bogeyman" positions. I'm simply saying that I don't know of a third alternative between "sexuality is 'hardwired' into us - and by the way half of us have a penis and half of us have a vagina" or "sexuality is constructed in the individual as s/he passes through a series of experiences." But I do think that a psychoanalytic approach can mediate between them - though it ultimately must come down on the constructivist side, because sexuality is to do with "software", not "hardware". It's in the mind, not the genitalia.

I'm also saying that both these very broad positions are capable of sustianing positive and negative attitudes towards homosexuality and homosexuals. The former, very obviously, opens the possibility of saying that individuals may be born homosexual, that you will probably find a proportion of homosexual individuals in any population, that it may well be genetically determined, yadda, yadda, yadda.

And from that you might draw the conclusion that homosexuality is perfectly natural, that people have no choice in their sexuality, and that it’s just one of those things, and that it’s absurd to persecute it.

Or you might observe how homosexual animals are treated by the rest of their populations, and draw “scientific” conclusions from that as to how it’s OK for humans to behave. And that might provide – on the basis that people are basically just animals – dark validations of homophobia.

Or you might say that the proportion of homosexuals in a population is just the ratio of abnormal to normal, that homosexual individuals are “malformed”, “diseased”, whatever. A scientistic, biologistic approach is never going to generate the moral values that allow us to take stands against homophobia. Because homophobia is the problem, not homosexuality. Maybe if homophobia ever became an object of scientific study…

So on the other hand, you have the understanding that sexuality is constructed. That gender is not essentially related to biology at all. That we are the product of all sorts of powerful forces that shape us, and that we have to live with the consequences. The important thing here is what we are now. (Why “the way we were born” should always be allowed to trump “the way we are now” mystifies me.)

If you just dip into anti-postmodernist, anti-feminist literature – even mainstream stuff – you find a lot of this simply dismissed. Which is its weakness. It’s easy to do. Again, the ultimate fallback position is the absurdity of arguing that sexuality isn’t determined by the bits your pants hide. What do you do if you don’t happen to find that an absurd proposition? Shout back louder? Which means that you’re left with assertions and counter-assertions. People talking from different premises across a gulf.

Those aren’t two “bogeyman” positions. I think most people would recognize them from just about any discussion on (homo)sexuality.

All I’m saying is that I don’t know of another approach than the Freudian that understands sexuality as constructed while taking into full account the genital actualities. I don’t know another approach that understands our sexuality – the sexuality of all of us as determined by homosexual and heterosexual eros, or which makes it so comprehensible that homophobia, for instance, is something inside people that they can’t cope with in themselves.

As to the bitter hostility of sections of the scientific establishment towards psychoanalysis, Weatherill cites Fitzgerald's 1987 study of Eysenck's two blocks of research, in 1952, and 1964-5 in which Eysenck famously concluded that people get better under psychoanalysis the same rate they do untreated. In other words psychoanalysis has null effect. He "overlooked a number of controlled studies of all kinds on the effciacy of psychotherapy." Eysenck gives a figure of 90% improvement under behavioural therapy - but excluded those who broke off treatment early, whereas he includes those who stopped early in his figures on psychoanalysis. His rates of "so-called spontaneous remission were calculated in such a way as to make the fly in the face of all clinical realities. For instance the remission rates for alcoholics and psychopaths were 64% and 75%and the suggestion that 66 per cent of those classed as neurotics get better if they are not treated is perhaps the greatest weakness among all his findings." Weatherill cites other studies which suggest a spontaneous remission rate for all mental illness of 30%, for all forms of psychotherapy other than psychoanalysis of 65%, and for psychoanalysis of 83%. (Rob Weatherill,
Cultural Collapse)
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
[TANGENT] Psyduck - since you don't read the "PM BOX" thread in All Ss, could I temporaily derail this thread by mentioning that your message box is full?

No? Oh, sorry. Please resume transmission then. [/TANGENT]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sorry - I always assume that that's a thread for people who get lots of PMs, not for people who are just relcutant to throw anything away, especially if someone's taken the trouble to write to them! (Of course it's a bit off if people take the trouble to PM me, and my box is full! )
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Toujours Dan - you've got the wrong referent in this stereotype. Think of a sabre-tooth tiger which knows the original cast of every Broadway musical...

---

No, no! It would be Buster Wilde, Weerwolf!

David

[ 11. April 2006, 15:09: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sorry - I always assume that that's a thread for people who get lots of PMs, not for people who are just relcutant to throw anything away, especially if someone's taken the trouble to write to them!

---

Actually it's for people with full PM boxes.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Just seems an interesting concept - you know, a thread which people will check to see if their PM box is full, whose PM box is full because they don't just check it... Almost establishes the Freudian unconscious all on its own, doesn't it!
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Ahem!!

Tangent alert! Tangent alert! Tangent alert!

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
You're right, sorry!
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
[Tangent] You owe me a beer, Psyduck. But at least the rhyme has improved [/tangent]
 

---

Posted by Marton (# 11332) on :
 
The standing laws in relation to adoption and family, family units, are a result of an evil world system.

Without doubt a homosexual "couple" would never be able to adopt children in a different world system; one that was righteous and just.

The answer is no.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
You really need to provide some support for your claims.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Without doubt a homosexual "couple" would never be able to adopt children in a different world system; one that was righteous and just.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You really need to provide some support for your claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
The standing laws in relation to adoption and family, family units, are a result of an evil world system.

---

quote:

---

Without doubt a homosexual "couple" would never be able to adopt children in a different world system; one that was righteous and just.

---

quote:

---

The answer is no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Without doubt a homosexual "couple" would never be able to adopt children in a different world system; one that was righteous and just.

---

What's "righteous and just" about denying a homosexual couple adoption rights?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
OK.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
The standing laws in relation to adoption and family, family units, are a result of an evil world system.

---

No, they're not.

quote:

---

Without doubt a homosexual "couple" would never be able to adopt children in a different world system; one that was righteous and just.

---

In a righteous and just system, homosexual couples would be treated just like heterosexual couples trying to adopt children.

quote:

---

The answer is no.

---

The answer is yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
If you don't understand that the world system is not righteous and just, then you need to think again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Marton, I think you need to study this website for a while.

---

Mmmmm looks riveting. I'll be sure to.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Marton - apprentices are normally cut some slack for their first few posts, so this is by way of hostly advice rather than a warning.

Other Shipmates have intimated that you are in danger of breaking Commandment 8 - one of those Commandments that you agreed to when you registered. If you need a reminder click the appropriate text in the blue area on the left of your screen.

These are Discussion Boards - which require that you argue/defend/support your case. Constantly making and repeating bald statements is crusading or trolling - and not allowed here.

Please take this friendly warning in the spirit in which it is made. If it is not clear, please contact me directly by Private Message or email.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 

---

Posted by Righteous Rebel (# 7524) on :
 
Certainly homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. After all, heterosexuals don't have to go through "Childrearing 101" before they enter into sexual congress, whether or not the intent is to have children.
 

---

Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:


[...]

My sister has struggled with her identity in recent years but is working through it. She didn't suffer any form of racism at school or teasing/bullying for being adopted. Given that at high school she was the only non-white student in 2000 kids, I think she was extremely fortunate.

[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
After all, heterosexuals don't have to go through "Childrearing 101" before they enter into sexual congress, whether or not the intent is to have children.

---

quote:

---

I am friends with several homosexuals and have talked about this on occasion. My feelings are that having children is a privilage, not a right.

---

quote:

---

Every child has the right to have a Mother and a Father. For obvious reasons, we cannot ask children to make the choice between having a homosexual/lesbian parents and having hetrosexual parents. It would be unfair on the child.

---

quote:

---

We have no idea what the future outcomes would be. The child could be harassed at school or driven into depression or have some form of mental disruption as a result. We cannot be completely certain what the outcome would be. It could indeed be positive!

---

If you take that paragraph out of the context of homosexuality, you could say that about life for any child on the face of the planet (well, except for the going to school part). Life does that to everyone, not just the adoptees of homosexual people. Why does it apply especially to homosexual parents?
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
Dammit mirrizin, you covered every point I want to make. And in the same order, too!
 

---

Posted by RainbowKate (# 9331) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:

The child could be harassed at school or driven into depression or have some form of mental disruption as a result. We cannot be completely certain what the outcome would be.

---

quote:

---

Parenting is a privilege. So is voting. There are conditions one must meet to be a good parent. How, specifically, are homosexual couples not meeting these conditions?

---

quote:

---

Why does it apply especially to homosexual parents?

---

quote:

---

Having heterosexual parents is certainly not the answer to a trauma free childhood.

---

quote:

---

If you want to go against the grain (And sorry, I will not be politically correct on this), and be a homosexual or lesbian, you must accept that through that choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
If you want to go against the grain (And sorry, I will not be politically correct on this), and be a homosexual or lesbian, you must accept that through that choice you realise you should not be having, or adpoting children, for the childs sake. It is completely selfish.

---

And I don't think the point is your personal orientation. That's not what Karl's saying. He's saying that it's not a choice. And you did say that it was a choice - see my italics above. Did you mean something different then? Or is it only selfish when people have chosen their orientation?

I don't actually know anyone who has chosen their orientation. Or how you would do that.

[ 19. May 2006, 09:48: Message edited by: Caz... ]
 

---

Posted by Mishkle (# 11381) on :
 
Ah, I see what you mean. Ok, I'll have to take that one (since I can't go back and edit [now I see why that function is limited]).

I should of said "through the choice to live your life in that manner". It is selfish to think that you have the right to have a child whether you are homosexual, lesbian or alternative.

If you truely want a chid for this world, you would be prepared to sacrifice sexual activity for the rest of your life after one experience with a woman (or as many as it takes to conceive). I would sleep better at night if I knew that the man and woman in this case did truely love eachother, just didn't want the whole relationship part.

That may of not made sense, so I am expecting ridicule.
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
No ridicule from me

But can I just clarify, for my own mind's sake, that the reason you don't think gay people should adopt is because of the ridicule that the child may face?

Is that the only reason?

If so, should disabled people not be able to have children either? Schoolchildren can be very mean about disabled parents. What about parents adopting a child from a different ethnicity?

And what about the alternative of leaving that child in care, either with a foster family or in a childrens home? Those would also invite ridicule from children in the playground, I have no doubt.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
However, I will not retract any comments made by me. Fact still remains that the natural way to have a child is for a male and female to have intercourse and conceive.

---

quote:

---

John Holding: Yes every child does have a right to a mother and father. Life has its ups and downs though and sometimes that is not fulfilled. Doesn't mean we shouldn't give each child that opportunity though does it?

---

quote:

---

And no it does not gaurantee that the child will be "problem free". It has worked for centuries though has it not?

---

quote:

---

One of my closest friends went through hell when he came out of the closet at school. Do you think if he had stood infront of a croud of students and said "Hey everyone, I had sex with this really hot Girl in the weekend" he would be harassed for it? If he said the alternate, I believe he would not enjoy school for very long.

---

quote:

---

If you want to go against the grain (And sorry, I will not be politically correct on this), and be a homosexual or lesbian, you must accept that through that choice ...

---

quote:

---

mirrizin: You quoted my statement about children being more likely to get a hard time at school from having alternative sexually orientated parents. Forgive my rudeness, but are you honestly naieve enough to believe that children would not make fun of another child whose parents were homosexual or lesbian?

---

No. I never said that they wouldn't be treated unfairly, though I think that circumstance would depend largely on the neighborhood or school the kid grew up in. I would say that most kids in school get treated unfairly. There are always some kids who will find any possible excuse to pick on you.

Note, I'm not saying that it's a good idea for homosexuals to adopt merely because they can, or to make a "statement."

I just think that if two homosexual people want to adopt, especially in a world where god knows there aren't enough stable, loving, supportive straight couples out there, they should be allowed to, following the same procedures as straight couples.

Why choose, on the basis of other people's discrimination, or on the basis of one's own discimination, to deny them the privelege of raising a child? At the same time, why use the aforementioned to deny a child the right to a stable two parent household?
 

---

Posted by Mishkle (# 11381) on :
 
Well, I wasn't expecting such convuluted replies.

I've said what I can say, and certainly can't reply to any of these replies without more justificataion. Glad I passed by though, as you have certainly opened up my eyes to the issue significantly more.
 

---

Posted by Marton (# 11332) on :
 
Homosexuals need to stop being vocal - goodness knows we all know they're there already - and start realising that a sexually active human being of any gender is not behaving according to the will of god. And homosexual marriage?? That my friends is a just a joke and an idea that is truly bizarre, and ugly.

I accept that homosexuals exist obviously, and that there needs to be law changes to accommodate their needs such as pensions, house ownership and all that other "joint" stuff. But they need to leave the children alone. They cannot breed. The only way they have access to what hetero couples have in a natural god given way is through politically correct law systems.

They need to realise they are not living according to god's will if they're sexually active and pretending to be a "married couple" or otherwise. It'd be funny if it weren't so bizarre.

In the same way anyone that is sexually active and not married is not living according to god's will.
 

---

Posted by aj (# 1383) on :
 
Phew! Glad we've got that sorted, then.

I've just finished reading On Being Liked by James Alison. Best Christian book I've read in ages.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Homosexuals need to stop being vocal - goodness knows we all know they're there already - and start realising that a sexually active human being of any gender is not behaving according to the will of god. And homosexual marriage?? That my friends is a just a joke and an idea that is truly bizarre, and ugly.

I accept that homosexuals exist obviously, and that there needs to be law changes to accommodate their needs such as pensions, house ownership and all that other "joint" stuff. But they need to leave the children alone. They cannot breed. The only way they have access to what hetero couples have in a natural god given way is through politically correct law systems.

They need to realise they are not living according to god's will if they're sexually active and pretending to be a "married couple" or otherwise. It'd be funny if it weren't so bizarre.

In the same way anyone that is sexually active and not married is not living according to god's will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
The church has got to regain its great state of holiness.

---

quote:

---

Marton:
Again, happy to be a whipping boy if that's the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:

quote:

---

Marton:
Again, happy to be a whipping boy if that's the case.

---

'Whipping boy'? That would imply you were an apologist for some sort of position. You have no position, merely unsupported opinions.

I classify you more correctly as a 'Sentient watered-down Chick tract'.

---

quote:

---

and start realising that a sexually active human being of any gender is not behaving according to the will of god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Marton:

quote:

---

and start realising that a sexually active human being of any gender is not behaving according to the will of god.

---

Am I the only one to find this a remarkable statement?

Not to mention unbiblical...

---

quote:

---

I suppose though that I support the biblical. Does that count? Probably not.

---

You support the biblical teaching on marriage? Could you explain what that would be?

In the Bible on my shelf, God-ordained marriages include forcing one's servants to marry one, forcing women who are raped to marry their rapists, forcing women whose nations are defeated in battle to marry the conquering soldiers, and forcing men whose brothers die to marry their widowed sisters-in-law. Oh yes, and polygamy is not only allowed, it's often commanded by God.

Which of these holy definitions of marriage do you think should be enshrined in our secular laws?

And what do any of them have to do with a vow to love and take care of another person for the rest of your lives? Or is that just "the world's insipid version of love" and we should scrap it as a basis for marriage?

If a stable marriage is going to be a prerequisite for adoption** we should be a little more careful about what the definition of marriage is.

As for the idea that only people who can "breed" should be allowed to adopt, the mind boggles. One of the reasons (not the only one!) people choose to adopt children is because they cannot conceive children. Are you seriously contending that only fertile people should be permitted to adopt children?

*And I had to edit it.
**Which it most certainly is not where I live--and where you live, too, Luna: single people can adopt in every state in the US.

[ 20. May 2006, 14:29: Message edited by: Amy the Undecided ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
A brilliant first post, Amy! Welcome to the SOF!
 

---

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Not to mention a fantastic nickname!
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Homosexuals need to stop being vocal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Agreed. People should speak from experience, not because of some book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Agreed. People should speak from experience, not because of some book.

---

Some book? In that same book your talking about God does state that he does not like homosexuals (Leviticus). Thats slightly off topic, but I couldn't watch someone write "some book" and stay silent.

---

If you check out Leviticus chapter 11, you'll find that prawns and shellfish are an abomination. (they don't count as having fins or scales) I do hope you haven't had any sweet and sour prawns or any variety of tasty crustacean or shellfish. Indeed if you have, I must demand that you not be allowed to breed or adopt children because prawn lovers are disgusting to God and their children will be taunted by all righteous people.

OK I'm teasing you about the last part but not about the first. There are lots of things in Leviticus and other parts of the Old Testament which are not accepted by many Christians now: stuff ranging from the ban on a good prawn curry to things like raping war captives or killing civilians in war (see the Biblical Inerrancy thread for examples and more detailed discussion).

The questions about Biblical interpretation of passages like this regarding men having sex with men are complex enough that they've sparked this enormous thread on the Ship Homosexuality and Christianity, if you want to get some idea of how people think about these passages and the variety of views - then I suggest that you browse that thread.

L.
 

---

Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
God does state that he does not like homosexuals (Leviticus).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Homosexuals need to stop being vocal

---

Heterosexuals need to stop being so vocal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
My first post!* I've been lurking on these boards for 3-odd years (and odd they have been).

Marton:

quote:

---

I suppose though that I support the biblical. Does that count? Probably not.

---

You support the biblical teaching on marriage? Could you explain what that would be?

In the Bible on my shelf, God-ordained marriages include forcing one's servants to marry one, forcing women who are raped to marry their rapists, forcing women whose nations are defeated in battle to marry the conquering soldiers, and forcing men whose brothers die to marry their widowed sisters-in-law. Oh yes, and polygamy is not only allowed, it's often commanded by God.

Which of these holy definitions of marriage do you think should be enshrined in our secular laws?

And what do any of them have to do with a vow to love and take care of another person for the rest of your lives? Or is that just "the world's insipid version of love" and we should scrap it as a basis for marriage?

If a stable marriage is going to be a prerequisite for adoption** we should be a little more careful about what the definition of marriage is.

As for the idea that only people who can "breed" should be allowed to adopt, the mind boggles. One of the reasons (not the only one!) people choose to adopt children is because they cannot conceive children. Are you seriously contending that only fertile people should be permitted to adopt children?

*And I had to edit it.
**Which it most certainly is not where I live--and where you live, too, Luna: single people can adopt in every state in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
God does state that he does not like homosexuals (Leviticus).

---

Does not. If you must indulge in proof-texting, at least quote accurately.

Cc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
How then can any promiscuous couple so called behave righteously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auntie Doris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
How then can any promiscuous couple so called behave righteously?

---

How can any judgemental person behave righteously? Surely that is no-one's job but God's, and by doing so you attempt to elevate yourself to a place that isn't yours to attain.

Auntie Doris x

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Being christian, it is my role to judge.

---

quote:

---

But does this not suggest that God didn't want Homosexuals to have children or be parents?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auntie Doris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Being christian, it is my role to judge.

---

Really? Funny that... seems to me that Matthew 6:1-5 says

" Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Auntie Doris x

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:

You've taken the stance that is very acceptable and "compassionate" in todays modern politically correct climate here in the western world.

---

quote:

---

So then, rather than say that god hates homosexuals, I say that god loves all people, but we are in error if we think that all people are righteous in the eyes of god.

---

quote:

---

How then can any promiscuous couple so called behave righteously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
It "suggests". Therefore, not irrelevant. And the only reason I quoted that was because someone was being pedantic.

Read between the lines is my suggestion.

---

quote:

---

My mistake. Should of[sic] realised people here would be so pedantic. I don't know many straight men who have sex with other straight men though. But for the record, I do know a fair number of non hetrosexuals.

---

quote:

---

I should of[sic] said "through the choice to live your life in that manner". It is selfish to think that you have the right to have a child whether you are homosexual, lesbian or alternative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Agreed. People should speak from experience, not because of some book.

---

Some book? In that same book your talking about God does state that he does not like homosexuals (Leviticus). Thats slightly off topic, but I couldn't watch someone write "some book" and stay silent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

quote:

---

originally by Mishkel

God hates the act, so perhaps he does not like people commiting the act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

First, I know lots of those folks. Some are 14 and haven't had sex with anyone yet. Some are bisexual women in heterosexual marriages, who don't have sex with women for the same reason they don't have sex with other men--because they are faithful and monogamous--but their sexual orientation is still what it is. Some are just not very interested in sex--people vary this way a great deal. Some are 90 and, after a long and pleasant sex life, don't have much energy for it anymore.

Second, half the gay people in the world are exempt, since Leviticus says nothing about women having sex with women. (I know, I know, Paul does. Odd, though, that the author of Leviticus doesn't think it worth a mention.)

Third, no one in this thread has yet explained why this passage of the Bible should be taken literally, instead of as a snapshot of the culture that recorded it, when other passages right alongside it are never remotely considered as a basis for secular law. My hypothesis is that because the one on gay sex affirms common prejudices, those who hold those prejudices are eager to embrace it. Or if I'm wrong, how about starting a thread on "Should disrespect to one's parents be a capital offense?" (Lev. 20:9, Deut. 21:18-21) (At the very least, it should disqualify one from adopting children, don't you think?)

This is a very serious question. Those who say that on the basis of the Bible, GLB folks should not be allowed to adopt, are advocating theocracy. If you're going to base secular law on God's will, you had better be damn sure what that will is. If you are being selective about which of God's laws you will enforce, might I suggest that you may be passing your own will off as God's?

As Anne Lamott says, "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." (Mea culpa--I'm sure God hates George W. Bush! )

- - - -

Craigb, I hate to correct someone at the moment he is making room for grudging tolerance, but I just want to point out that you are confusing sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. A person can be absolutely, positively certain of being whatever sex he/she is, and meet all the biological definitions of that sex that we know (chromosomal, brain chemistry, genitalia), and still be attracted to people of the same sex.
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

quote:

---

I can see your point of view. I do often read into things too much so maybe I am missing this elementary level that you are talking about. God hates the act, so perhaps he does not like people commiting the act.

---

quote:

---

This discussion is wearing me out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Interesting how if a verse of scripture disagrees with one's point, it's being taken out of context, but if it agrees with one's point, it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

What astonishing ignorance is betrayed by the words above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

What astonishing ignorance is betrayed by the words above.

I know three in this parish alone.

---

Well, of course, they are pulling the wool over your eyes because everyone knows that gay people (gay!gay!gay!) are reprobates of unbridled lust.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auntie Doris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Being christian, it is my role to judge.

---

Really? Funny that... seems to me that Matthew 6:1-5 says

" Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Auntie Doris x

---

You're using this scripture out of context. It's irrelevant to my premise.

Righteous judgement is a different bag of nails altogether.

---

quote:

---

"Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
When you find a "gay" (and I regret to use that word because I hate it) human being who does not participate in sexual intercourse, you give me a buzz.

---

What astonishing ignorance is betrayed by the words above.

I know three in this parish alone.

---

Well, of course, they are pulling the wool over your eyes because everyone knows that gay people (gay!gay!gay!) are reprobates of unbridled lust.

---

I know confidential stuff about themm so I believe them.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Leo, check your irony meter.

Oh, no! I hope that Mishkle didn't thinking I was agreeing with him/her.
 

---

Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
8<...you give me a buzz.

---

Now that's something I haven't done to a schoolboy in some years. I wonder if it's a sin.

Cc
 

---

Posted by Mishkle (# 11381) on :
 
Saint Bertolin: Though this thread has gone slightly on a tangent, I am still the same person I was when we had that conversation via PM. However, this subject is one that I feel rather strongly about and cannot stay quiet.

If you want kids, do it the natural way. Thats how it is meant to be (as we were created like that). If you honestly feel that you will love a child enough, and would be willing to sacrifice anything for that child, as any good parent would do, you would be willing to conceive with a woman, and give that child a father and a mother.
Your emotional baggage with her is your two's problem. What matters is that the child has a loving father and mother, because that is what every child needs, and when that doesn't happen, I believe a child is disadvantaged.

I'm not posting on this thread anymore. Not only does it bring out a bad side in me, but it has shown me a face of many of you which I will not be forgetting in a hurry.

I pray that nothing said in this thread is taken out of this thread, including emotion on the subject.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

If you want kids, do it the natural way. Thats how it is meant to be (as we were created like that). If you honestly feel that you will love a child enough, and would be willing to sacrifice anything for that child, as any good parent would do, you would be willing to conceive with a woman, and give that child a father and a mother.
Your emotional baggage with her is your two's problem. What matters is that the child has a loving father and mother, because that is what every child needs, and when that doesn't happen, I believe a child is disadvantaged.

---

This is one of the most ignorant pieces of shit I have ever had the misfortune to see on one of these threads. Your age and newness which I have tried to take into account up to now does not excuse it. The person dearest to me in the world is adopted. His parents did not conceive him the so-called 'natural' way. Conception with a woman and marriage to her has bugger all to do with whether people can be loving parents or not.

As for every child needing a father and a mother, tell all the war widows from the last war who never remarried what a crap job they did bringing up their children, in a single parent household. Tell that to people like my mother who had to manage alone after leaving a drunk and abusive man. Being a man and a woman married to each other does not magically turn people into fit parents. You apparently, would rather see a child in a crack-den with two addicted opposite sex parents so long as they're heterosexual or rotting in a care home rather than being with loving and stable people who don't fit your magical views.

You don't even seem to realise that the bigoted crap you aim at gay people, sprays over many other good people too. Post more of it and you will get a Hell call from me. By the way we weren't created that way, why don't you read that Bible you're brandishing about like a weapon, if you're taking the literal approach you will notice that Adam and Eve were not created by someone conceiving with a woman and sacrificing his life to her - what a pervert that God is, eh?

L.
 

---

Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
Louise



Auntie Doris x
 

---

Posted by xSx (# 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
Saint Bertolin:

<snip>
If you want kids, do it the natural way. Thats how it is meant to be (as we were created like that). If you honestly feel that you will love a child enough, and would be willing to sacrifice anything for that child, as any good parent would do, you would be willing to conceive with a woman, and give that child a father and a mother.

---

Either this remark is a particularly nasty and hostile think to say to St. Bertolin, or (if not intended as personal "advice") you may want to rephrase it so you include female homosexuals in your bigoted suggestions.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Once again Louise.
 

---

Posted by icklejen (# 713) on :
 
man, i just noticed that my husband started this thread way back in june 2001, and appears never to have even posted again. i promise to roast him for his inflammatryness when he gets in. ij x
 

---

Posted by Amy the Undecided (# 11412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:

If you want kids, do it the natural way.

---

quote:

---

Thats how it is meant to be (as we were created like that).

---

quote:

---

What matters is that the child has a loving father and mother, because that is what every child needs, and when that doesn't happen, I believe a child is disadvantaged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mishkle:
I'm not posting on this thread anymore.

---

quote:

---

If it's infertile or incapable of breeding then it's fate accompli. Fertility clinics be damned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
M and M, you seem to share roughly the same position on this. Let me make sure I understand it correctly.

You seem to be saying that only people who should have children are fertile heterosexual couples who can have children "the old-fashioned way." If they can't conceive and bear, they shouldn't have children. Is that your take on it?

I've said it before but for old time's sake; There seems to be a contradiction in the world over this issue. On the one hand pop. control is bandied about, but on the other we have artificial insemination and fertility clinics.

If so, who do you expect to adopt children whose parents have died or who have been abandoned by or taken away from their biological parents? The people who can have children are probably not interested in adopting any more. Usually, children are adopted by people who can't have children any other way. Are you really saying that these people shouldn't adopt? None of them?



That's what it sounds like you're saying, but I can't help thinking I must have misunderstood. Would you kindly clarify?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Unfortunately, Marton, I'm not only a self-righteous old dowager, I may also be getting a bit senile in my dotage. I found that answer impossible to follow. Do you think you could try again? Let's simplify it a bit, for the sake of my elderly brain cells:

Do you think heterosexual couples who cannot have children should be permitted to adopt children? Please start your answer with a straightforward yes or a no, and then give your reasons. That will give me the context necessary to make sense of your response.

---

quote:

---

If it's infertile or incapable of breeding then it's fate accompli.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Unfortunately, Marton, I'm not only a self-righteous old dowager, I may also be getting a bit senile in my dotage. I found that answer impossible to follow. Do you think you could try again? Let's simplify it a bit, for the sake of my elderly brain cells:

Do you think heterosexual couples who cannot have children should be permitted to adopt children? Please start your answer with a straightforward yes or a no, and then give your reasons. That will give me the context necessary to make sense of your response.

---

I think I know where you're going with this so I'll just cut straight to it.

Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes

Homosexuality is NOT a legitimate lifestyle choice so called. I'm aware of the facts surrounding homosexuality and that in most cases it's not a choice. Celibacy is the only righteous course of action there. The secular world? That's their business.

Catfeesh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by icklejen:
man, i just noticed that my husband started this thread way back in june 2001, and appears never to have even posted again. i promise to roast him for his inflammatryness when he gets in. ij x

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
I said it here. Read it again. Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by icklejen:
man, i just noticed that my husband started this thread way back in june 2001, and appears never to have even posted again. i promise to roast him for his inflammatryness when he gets in. ij x

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes.

Homosexuality is NOT a legitimate lifestyle choice so called. I'm aware of the facts surrounding homosexuality and that in most cases it's not a choice. Celibacy is the only righteous course of action there. The secular world? That's their business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes.

Homosexuality is NOT a legitimate lifestyle choice so called. I'm aware of the facts surrounding homosexuality and that in most cases it's not a choice. Celibacy is the only righteous course of action there. The secular world? That's their business.

---

So if your objection is to the homosexual "lifestyle" (whatever that means)and celibacy is the only righteous course of action for a homosexual, then by your logic a celibate therefore righteous homosexual person should be as fit to be an adoptive parent as a righteous heterosexual person, whether celibate or not.

Or of course it could be a gross over-simplification to reduce the question of what makes a good adoptive parent to the question of "gay" or "straight". So let's add a little qualifying "all other factors being equal" to that list. Because there are many other factors - the chief of which is the paramount welfare of the child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes.

Homosexuality is NOT a legitimate lifestyle choice so called. I'm aware of the facts surrounding homosexuality and that in most cases it's not a choice. Celibacy is the only righteous course of action there. The secular world? That's their business.

---

So if your objection is to the homosexual "lifestyle" (whatever that means)and celibacy is the only righteous course of action for a homosexual, then by your logic a celibate therefore righteous homosexual person should be as fit to be an adoptive parent as a righteous heterosexual person, whether celibate or not.

Or of course it could be a gross over-simplification to reduce the question of what makes a good adoptive parent to the question of "gay" or "straight". So let's add a little qualifying "all other factors being equal" to that list. Because there are many other factors - the chief of which is the paramount welfare of the child.

---

You're not following my logic. You went off on your own after this bit "a celibate therefore righteous homosexual" etc. This statement "A homosexual should not adopt" overrules it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charam:
Marton, are you saying that only couples should adopt, and that therefore as you believe homosexual relationships to be wrong, then you think they shouldn't adopt?
Because if you think that individuals can adopt, then I don't see what difference their sexuality makes.
I'm just trying to work out if you are really as prejudiced and homophobic as you sound.
You need to understand that your arguments don't make sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
A single homosexual, living celibately, in my view should suffer no obstacle to being an adoptive parent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
A single homosexual, living celibately, in my view should suffer no obstacle to being an adoptive parent.

---

quote:

---

On a different note, the word homophobe really has legitimised moral objection hasn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:

You're not following my logic. You went off on your own after this bit "a celibate therefore righteous homosexual" etc. This statement "A homosexual should not adopt" overrules it.

---

quote:

---

There seems to be a contradiction in the world over this issue. On the one hand pop. control is bandied about, but on the other we have artificial insemination and fertility clinics.

---

quote:

---

the word homophobe really has legitimised moral objection hasn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:

You're not following my logic. You went off on your own after this bit "a celibate therefore righteous homosexual" etc. This statement "A homosexual should not adopt" overrules it.

---

Marton. Logic is not overruled by a statement. Logic requires giving reasons for a statement.

I think I can see the reason embedded in your argument, the missing part of one of your syllogisms:

People who are not "righteous" may not adopt children.
Homosexuals are by definition "unrighteous," regardless of celibacy.
Therefore, homosexuals may not adopt.

I believe I granted that homosexuality is a sin (for argument's sake only) many posts back. I assume we are agreed that there are other sins. So, if homosexuality is just one of many sins, then why should the law be that gays can not adopt, period? Should it not be one of many factors one considers? bizarre vision comes to mind of social worker writing home study reports, one on gay couple who are otherwise very nice, one on rude and unpleasant couple who are, at least, straight

This would be consistent with your concern that homosexuality is not righteous. Yet you insist that homosexuality per se is a disqualifier, which is one reason people here keep telling you that your "logic" is not consistent.

Really, the only way for it to be consistent would be for it to read like this:

Only those without sin may adopt.
As Jesus rightly pointed out, none of us are without sin.
Therefore, no one may adopt.

OK, all this assuming that homosexuality is a sin is making me feel dirty and sticky, so on to another logical problem.

quote:

---

There seems to be a contradiction in the world over this issue. On the one hand pop. control is bandied about, but on the other we have artificial insemination and fertility clinics.

---

Yes, there are people in the world who are very concerned about overpopulation. There are also people in the world who are concerned about infertility. You have not pointed out a logical contradiction, just made the obvious statement that in a world of 6 billion people there are a variety of opinions. And then there might be people like me who believe in both population control and fertility treatment: who think that it would be best if none of us should have more than one or two children, but that I'm entitled to that one or two. Is that inconsistent? Should I conceive NO children in order to make up for the woman down the street who conceived six?

These drive-by shots of yours do nothing to convince anyone of your point. And telling people that they're illogical because they're fed up with your incomplete syllogisms just makes you look silly.

quote:

---

the word homophobe really has legitimised moral objection hasn't it?

---

I'm not crazy about it for a different reason: it substitutes a psychological term for a moral one. It may be that the root of this particular bigotry is fear--it seems likely--but it's both presumptuous to call someone else "phobic" and rather gets them off the hook from their immorality. It does have precedent in "xenophobia," but I'd prefer a less psychobabbly term. "Bigot" works fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:
Em, if you read it in context it's talking about idol worship - which I know has been raised in connection with this passage before. How does adoption come into it?

---

quote:

---

Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suze:

quote:

---

Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:

---

I've gone back a bit and on a bit for context sake.

As far as I can see the sin wasn't the sexual behaviour but the idolatry that preceeded it. Even if you do take the view that the sexual behaviour was sinful, the later verses suggest that it was no worse than as pride, gossip and disobedience to parents, all of which flowed from a reprobate mind.

Funny that I've not yet seen a discussion around whether haughty, boastful people should be allowed to adopt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
But again, you've missed the flow of the scriptures. It indeed speaks of idolatry, and it being the cause for all manner of uncleanness, including HOMOSEXUALITY to eventuate. Yes. Unclean as it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jinglebellrocker:
In Genesis 19 Lot was so against the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with his male guests that he offered them his own daughter instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jinglebellrocker:
Marton, I agree with you that Romans 1 speaks out against homosexuality. Paul is saying homosexuality is wrong and there a couple other places in the Bible that condemn it. In Genesis 19 Lot was so against the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with his male guests that he offered them his own daughter instead. I agree with you that homosexuality is sin. So do many other Christians.

But this is the issue for me--do you live in a Christian theocracy, Marton? Because if you live in the US or the UK I believe that the government is secular in both cases. In other words, it does not, and should not enforce a biblically moral code by law. Murder is against the law because everyone (or at least everyone who is sane) agrees that murder is wrong and destructive to society. Not everyone agrees (not even all Christians) that homosexuality is wrong, and it really doesn't hurt anyone, unless they choose to be offended. Even if all Christians did agree that is was wrong we do not have a Christian government. So if a homosexual couple wants to adopt, it is none of the government's business and they are in no way obligated to keep homosexuals from adopting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Funny that I've not yet seen a discussion around whether haughty, boastful people should be allowed to adopt.

quote:

---

It's a sad fact that nearly everybody here underlines posts with snide comments.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jinglebellrocker:
Marton, I agree with you that Romans 1 speaks out against homosexuality. Paul is saying homosexuality is wrong and there a couple other places in the Bible that condemn it. In Genesis 19 Lot was so against the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with his male guests that he offered them his own daughter instead.

---

Hmm. I don't really think that exactly shows Lot in a good light, do you?

Sodom is an interesting one, isn't it. Here we have people wanting to rape guests, and we focus on the fact that the guests were male, rather than the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to rape them. The "God squashed Sodom because they were poofters" argument rather indicates that God wouldn't have minded had the guests been female, which implies God's OK with rape, but not with homosexuality.

Maybe the point of the story is that God squashed Sodom because of sexual violence?

But I digress.

Marton, if you agree that the state should not legislate your particular version of Christian morality, why do you think it should legislate against homosexual couples adopting? Isn't that a contradiction?

Or is there an undercurrent in this?

Abusers of children, corrupters of youth
It's there in the papers, it must be the truth

Not to mention

Gay lib's ridiculous; join in their laughter:
"The buggers are legal now - what more are they after" (Tom Robinson, Glad to be gay)

Methinks Mr Robinson stamped your card thirty years ago
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Surely the whole shooting-match comes down to this:

a) is society better or worse when we allow homosexuals to adopt?; and
b) is allowing homosexuals to adopt presenting an unacceptable danger to children?

Even if you accept that certain people's behaviour is wrong, I'd say it is difficult to suggest that it destroys society as a whole by allowing them to look after vulnerable children. I guess you could argue that their 'disgusting' behaviour could rub off on the children - but then using the same argument, you could easy justify a position that politicians/people that go to the dog racing/muslims/vegetarians should not adopt.

I don't see any evidence that suggests homosexuals are any more of a risk to children - and probably are considerably less risk than some heterosexuals.

C
 

---

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Just read Romans 1 from about verse 24 to 28

---

quote:

---

2.1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

2.2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

2.3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

2.4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

2.5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

---

The point of the passage, condemning infidelity to God, then 'straight' forms of lust, then 'gay' lust(*), then malice, wickedness and anti-social behaviour generally, is TO MAKE YOU REALISE THAT YOU ARE GUILTY. If you read it as a justification of your view that some other group of human beings are unworthy or unfit for anything then you could not possibly have got the meaning more wrong.


(*) I don't think for a moment that St Paul is referring to, or would conceptualise, hetero- and homo- sexual behaviour in the same mental categories that we would, but that's probably another argument.
 

---

Posted by icklejen (# 713) on :
 
karl, i believe if davelarge does spend all his time reading this and not doing his phd, we may split up!
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
Marton, can I ask you a question please?

I was born into a 'Bible believing Christian' home with two heterosexual parents who unfortunately also believed in battering their children on all possible occasions.

I spent six years in care. In those six years I had one placement that lasted 2 years. For the other four years I was moved regularly from placement to placement. I believed I lived in somewhere about 15 or 16 places in these four years.

I had nothing stable, nothing loving and nothing that taught me that I was either wanted or worthwhile.

If a gay man or woman had offered me a settled loving placement I would have taken it immediately. Kids that are in care are bullied and traumatised anyway. Surely it's better to be bullied at school because you're living with a gay couple and being loved at home then being bullied at school because you're unwanted and then being unwanted at home?

I can reassure you that every placement I was in (both children's homes and foster placements) was run by people who were sinful. Funny that isn't it. But you think that being gay is somehow a bigger sin that precludes the ability to bring a child up in a loving manner. Why? If you're going to take this argument to it's logical conclusion then surely only 'Bible believing Christians' can look after children. But don't forget, I've experienced that one - I have the literal and emotional scars to show that.

In an ideal world children shouldn't need to live with those who are not their parents. In an ideal world there would be no need for anyone to adopt whether gay or straight. But we don't live in the ideal world - we live in a world where shite happens and considerable shite at that sometimes.

So surely making one child feel loved and wanted is a better argument than having society enforce a teaching that the vast majority of people do not believe in.
 

---

Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
Chive
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Sodom is an interesting one, isn't it. Here we have people wanting to rape guests, and we focus on the fact that the guests were male, rather than the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to rape them. The "God squashed Sodom because they were poofters" argument rather indicates that God wouldn't have minded had the guests been female, which implies God's OK with rape, but not with homosexuality.

<tangent on>

Actually, the crowd misidentifies them as men but the passage clearly identifies them as angels (Gen 19.1), so we know that they weren't human beings at all.

I thought the whole homosexuality debate was confined to acts between human beings.

<tangent off>
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
Just read Romans 1 from about verse 24 to 28

---

Why stop there? Why not read on to the conclusion of that line of thought?

quote:

---

2.1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

2.2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

2.3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

2.4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

2.5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

---

---

Eliab, wonderful pick up.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
We've actually been having a very interesting debate in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this week about homosexuality. In the run up to the Assembly, this spawned 3 groups, "Forward Together", a pretty conservative Evangelical grouping, "Affirmation Scotland", which endorses complete inclusion of glbt people, and a more centrist, but still essentially affirmative group "OneKirk". This latter have produced an interesting booklet which is available on their site as a PDF file, and which covers a lot of the ground of the recent debate on this thread, and for balance I'll mention that the "Forward Together" group also produced one available on theirs. I'm not linking to them, as I'm not clear on protocols here (no doubt a host will advise) but a quick google should turn them up. Maybe this should have been posted on the "Homosexuality and Christianity" thread, but as I say the Biblical debate on this one is shadowed in the OneKirk material.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
You have already done so, Psyduck (for which my thanks) - could the rest of you please follow her/him to the Homosexuality and Christianity thread for further discussions on these points.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 

---

Posted by eyeliner (# 4648) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
People who are not "righteous" may not adopt children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eyeliner:
Righteousness now has something to do with your ability to raise a child?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The position of the "antis" is that it is really better for children to stay in institutional care and/or be hauled from home to home than be in the stable care of an eligible gay couple because these children deserve the love of a man and woman?

---

Nuts, isn't it? "Children's rights" is the hot new argument. See What about the children? by Margaret Somerville, this year's Massey Lecturer. (I haven't decided if I'll be picketing or not!)

What the antis seem to gloss over or ignore is that adoption, divorce, and the use of donor gametes in IVF are also violations of "children's rights". So it's ok for straight couples to violate children's rights, but not for gay/lesbian couples. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
I have mixed feelings about gay adoption insofar as I am only in favor when married couples are unavailable. But anyone whose lecture title is identical to that of Helen Lovejoy's rantings ought to be hooted off the stage, no matter what the cause.
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
Well that article appears to be fairly pointless. Marriage is only marriage if you have kids. Well I can see a number of problems with that.
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
I have mixed feelings about gay adoption insofar as I am only in favor when married couples are unavailable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
It's been pointed out here and countless other places that children brought brought up by two loving parents (prefferably the child's mother and a father – but this is not always possible) do better than those in something less than that – such as with a single parent or even one or more abusive parents.

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

Ultimately questions of adoption ought not to be about whether we support the rights of gay people to adopt or the rights of Catholics to follow their consciences. They ought to be about the best outcome for the children concerned. Any organisation that wants to put that second ought not to be in the adoption business, IMO.

[Cross posted with empirical data, which rather leaves the care home option in the ess-aitch-one-tee.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If the RCC is threatening to close its' adoption agencies, letthem go ahad. I'd rather that the children were not cared for by those who discriminate.

---

I'm not sure I'd go as far as that. I don't like the idea that church led adoption agencies can discriminate against gay people. I dislike it very much indeed. But to watch them closing which prevents children ending up in settled caring homes is an appalling thing to wish. By that you're condemning children to spending longer in care which cannot be positive.

It would be different if all agencies were refusing to allow gay families to adopt but the Local Authority sector is available to those who wish to use it. Sometimes the lesser of two evils has to be acceptable.
 

---

Posted by MaryO (# 161) on :
 
Two friends of mine, a gay male couple--one a social worker and one an executive--adopted a baby boy some dozen years ago. No one else wanted the child, since he was born HIV-positive, addicted to crack, and brain-damaged. He spent his first year in the hospital, and had no consistent human connection. He was so sick that the agency didn't want to release him to my friends, on the grounds that "all you're going to be able to do is put him in the ground." They finally released M. when my friends showed them the funeral plans.

I talked to them last year, and asked how M. was doing. The dad I was talking to sighed and said, "Oh, I don't think he's long for this world." I gasped and asked, "Is he sick? What happened?!"

Dad: "Adolescence. I might kill him."

The boy is off most medications, mainstreamed in school, takes horseback riding lessons--and has crushes on girls.

He might still be institutionalized, or in fact dead, if gay couples weren't allowed to adopt.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
What a wonderful story!

May I ask if he's still HIV positive?
 

---

Posted by MaryO (# 161) on :
 
His viral load has been undetectable for yonks.
 

---

Posted by UKCanuck (# 10780) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaryO:

I talked to them last year, and asked how M. was doing. The dad I was talking to sighed and said, "Oh, I don't think he's long for this world." I gasped and asked, "Is he sick? What happened?!"

Dad: "Adolescence. I might kill him."

---

I love it! I'm a gay dad and mine are 10 and 12. I have all this to look forward to.
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by UKCanuck:
I love it! I'm a gay dad and mine are 10 and 12. I have all this to look forward to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
...large numbers of people appear to prefer invasive, uncomfortable and expensive fertility treatments to the simple expedient of adoption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
A single homosexual, living celibately, in my view should suffer no obstacle to being an adoptive parent.

---

Thank you for that concession at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If the RCC is threatening to close its' adoption agencies, letthem go ahad. I'd rather that the children were not cared for by those who discriminate.

---

I'm not sure I'd go as far as that. I don't like the idea that church led adoption agencies can discriminate against gay people. I dislike it very much indeed. But to watch them closing which prevents children ending up in settled caring homes is an appalling thing to wish. By that you're condemning children to spending longer in care which cannot be positive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marton:
But again, you've missed the flow of the scriptures. It indeed speaks of idolatry, and it being the cause for all manner of uncleanness, including HOMOSEXUALITY to eventuate. Yes. Unclean as it is.

---

quote:

---

All the archbishops have achieved is once more to give the impression that to be Christian is to be anti-gay.

---

Their stance is that the best interests of the child are paramount, and those interests may be best served by "a loving same-sex couple in a stable relationship".

Suits me. Why does it not suit the Archbishops?

The letter which follows, from an adopting gay man, gives some perspective as well.

[ 26. January 2007, 23:04: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I am a born-again bible banger (for those who do not know)...and since i had the misfortune to be raised in a rainbow colored part of the world , I am unable to say that gays should not adopt. Even after reading a blog from a guy who is gay, Catholic and thinks that gays should not be able to adopt. Why?

Because I have seen a friend of mine smoking pot with her foster dad growing up. The ideal parents don't seem to show up wanting to adopt much except pristine babies like MT said back earlier. Handicapped children, wheather they be physically or mentally, are given the shaft, straight up.

So I think on a gov't level, let them adopt.

Chances are high sometimes of parents who just want the cash from the gov't getting the child...like my friend's were. They were open about that bit of information. Bastards.

I also have seen a million other stories...of huge abuse. Love covers a multitude of sins. Saying "just let them eat cake" is the same thing as saying "since homosexuality is seen as a sin in the bible interpetation I take, don't let them adopt". Why don't then we screen out the alcoholics then as well? or the whitewashed tombs?

[eta: wink symbol, just in case somebody reads this and is not used to me. thx.]

[ 27. January 2007, 01:00: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Duchess, face it. You are a fluffy-bunny liberal.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I wish people would as much sense as you do, duch, even in your rambling way.

And ken has your number, I'm afraid.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
And to think I actually worried my post would be offensive.

Okay, no mo' fluffy bunny comparisons or I am going to have to go get a mohawk or something.

I feel like a panda bear in a police outfit.
 

---

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
It was an issue here a couple of years back when the Territory government introduced legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt. I remember my church at the time prayed that "this evil legislation" would not be passed. I couldn't, for the most part, see what the fuss was about. I don't really have a problem with the government allowing homosexual couples to adopt; from what I can see, they don't seem to get on any better or worse than other couples. As to kids brought up in such families, well, I don't know any, so I can't comment. I do tend to think that growing up in a family where the father and mother fill roles bearing some resemblence to conventional male / female roles is probably best for children, not because my upbringing was perfect but because I think being in a lopsided family did great psychological damage to my sister and I, from which neither of us has really recovered. But that doesn't always happen, and trying to force one or both partners to play a different role to the one they are suited for would be very counterproductive. I can't see why the average gay couple coundn't, between them, demonstrate the various facets of a human relationship that a child usually sees from its two parents.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
My general impression is that the "evil" to be prayed against is that of kids growing up in an environment where same sex unions are considered normal and exceptable.

They're corrupting the children!
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
I reserve the right to pass on all my prejudices and hatreds to my children without hindrance or contradiction, dammit!

(one 'p' too many!)

[ 29. January 2007, 03:22: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 

---

Posted by cqg (# 777) on :
 
I don't understand the anxiety about this non-existent "social experiment".

What's ironic (and tragically funny) about this whole fuss is that gay men and lesbians have been parenting and grand-parenting for nearly as long as straight people have.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
My general impression is that the "evil" to be prayed against is that of kids growing up in an environment where same sex unions are considered normal and exceptable.

---

Didn't you know that all liberals worship Abaddon and live to serve his will?

Run for the hills!
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
My general impression is that the "evil" to be prayed against is that of kids growing up in an environment where same sex unions are considered normal and exceptable.

---

Didn't you know that all liberals worship Abaddon and live to serve his will?

Run for the hills!

---

How do I run from myself? Oh, yeah, I'm an American librul, which makes me palely conservative by Brit standards. Even if I believe gays should be able to adopt. Where was I running again?

And I can't believe I wrote "exceptable" instead of acceptable. Doh!
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
You appear to be mistaken about *who* I am laughing at.

(I was laughing with, not at, you)

[ 29. January 2007, 21:18: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
No worries, Papio. I understood you perfectly.
 

---

Posted by mmmerangue (# 12355) on :
 
I think that Homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, so long as their sexual orientation does not affect the welfare or the choices of the child. Any Gay couple (sorry if that word offends anyone but its a whole 7 letters shorter than 'homosexual' and i'm lazy) would be just as risky a choice for adopting a child as any normal couple, the fact that they are gay makes no difference to their ability to raise a child. some points I agree on from previous posts:

1. Plenty of children are raised by a sole parent or 2 same sex people who are NOT a couple, how is that different from a homosexual couple? Not at all so far as I can see.

2. Hetero parents have gay children so it can work the other way - there was a great episode of Less than Perfect which i thought dealt with this issue hi-lairiously, where the camp-but-not-gay guy has to come out to his lesbian mothers as NOT gay. I would expect a gay couple to be open to whatever their children can throw at them, after all they came out once and know how hard it is.

3. Children are put through horrible stuff by their natural parents every day, and every person adopting a child goes through personality tests and all that jazz so (if they pass, it's quite difficult to) they are probably going to make better parents than many who are allowed their children just because they're 'theirs'.

4. Millions of children are orphaned or abandoned in the world. Without parents, without guidance, they have nothing to look up to and little to look forward to. ANY couple who is willing to offer light and life to these children should be taken into account, and sexual orientation should play as small a part as shoe size in the decision whether to accept them as new parents.

If I were to take this in a context with christianity - If the child is a baby or toddler, its not going to know any better, and it doesnt matter. if the child is older and aware of it's parents and their religion, and their religion was forcefully against Homosexuality, then adoption by a gay couple would cause friction in the family and should probably be avoided. thats the only reason i can think of why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.


PS, WOO! first post. probably my first one EVER to have meaning...
 

---

Posted by parabiodox (# 12404) on :
 
I am suprised for a supposedly serious discussion board that the issue of homosexuality should be consigned to a section called 'dead horses' as if the issue has somehow been resolved and is now just boring.
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Or is that not important ?
I have published several articles on homosexuality on my website, in particular I would draw people's attention to an article supporting an e-petition currently submitted to 10, Downing Street in the UK.
Support religious exemption from pro-gay adoption laws
http://recycledart.org/drupal-5.0-rc1/node/98

This is the petition, I would be interested to hear what people think:

From http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Adoption-choice/ -
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Allow adoption agencies the freedom to work according to the dictates of their conscience when finding adoptive parents for children. Also respect that the preference that children be given a home with a mother and father is not anti-homosexual discrimination. "
 

---

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
Hello parabiodox, I'm sure someone wiser and more experienced than I will pop along in a minute, but it might be worth reading what the 'Dead Horses' board is all about. It's not for issues that are resolved, but for issues that are decidedly unresolved! If you read back over this thread, you'll see how much lively debate this issue produces.

Might be worth reading the site's 10 commandments too.

[ 05. March 2007, 20:51: Message edited by: Earwig ]
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:
I am suprised for a supposedly serious discussion board that the issue of homosexuality should be consigned to a section called 'dead horses' as if the issue has somehow been resolved and is now just boring.
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Or is that not important ?
I have published several articles on homosexuality on my website, in particular I would draw people's attention to an article supporting an e-petition currently submitted to 10, Downing Street in the UK.
Support religious exemption from pro-gay adoption laws
http://recycledart.org/drupal-5.0-rc1/node/98

This is the petition, I would be interested to hear what people think:

From http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Adoption-choice/ -
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Allow adoption agencies the freedom to work according to the dictates of their conscience when finding adoptive parents for children. Also respect that the preference that children be given a home with a mother and father is not anti-homosexual discrimination. "

---

quote:

---

8. Don't crusade

Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.

---

That includes promoting petitions for campaigns here, so please don't.

The netiquette on this particular board is to read either the whole thread before posting or the last ten pages of any thread, and to engage with and reply to what other people have said or argued before you.

If you have a question about the entire concept of this board then the place to raise that is The Styx board.

By the way, you will find specific-enough topics touching on gay-related issues discussed on the main Purgatory board, but the broad questions of whether gay sex, marriage or adoption per se are right or wrong belong here on this board. Follow the guidance of the hosts on that and you'll be fine.

cheers,
Louise

Dead Horses Host

[ 05. March 2007, 22:01: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by parabiodox (# 12404) on :
 
Reply to Moderator

If I'm only allowed to respond to particular posts and I can't start a new topic how am I suppose to raise a topic that's definately not a dead horse ?
What is Christianity if it's not a crusade ?
What crusade isn't personal ?
What you mean is, don't rock the boat.
That's obviously one of the reasons where it's called Ship of Fools.
Now it's your forum and you can do what you like with it, just don't pretend it's somehow furthering the cause of Christianity.
You can't deal with issues by pretending they don't exist.
What you call a 'dead horse' is a subject of controversy between the UK government and the Catholic Church and Church of England right at this moment.
But let's not get worked up about matters of faith eh ?
A Ship of Fools indeed.

Chris Swift
 

---

Posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae (# 12011) on :
 
Awh, ain't 'e bold!?

Do like the nice lady says and read around a bit more before you jump on that high horse of your's. There's plenty or real impationed debate, we just avoid being boerish. You're heading for Hell. Must be a new trend, all these newbie's going straight there
 

---

Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
I have too much free time.

I think that this recent debate in Purgatory might be of interest here.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Discussion of the policy of the Ship of Fools and the actions of hosts belongs in the Styx. So, I'm just going to re-state the policy here in response to parabiodox. If anyone wants to discuss this, start a thread in the Styx.

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:
Reply to Moderator

If I'm only allowed to respond to particular posts and I can't start a new topic how am I suppose to raise a topic that's definately not a dead horse ?

---

quote:

---

You can't deal with issues by pretending they don't exist.
What you call a 'dead horse' is a subject of controversy between the UK government and the Catholic Church and Church of England right at this moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
I have too much free time.

I think that this recent debate in Purgatory might be of interest here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:
Reply to Moderator
just don't pretend it's somehow furthering the cause of Christianity.

Chris Swift

---

quote:

---

"Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:

Awh, ain't 'e bold!?

Do like the nice lady says and read around a bit more before you jump on that high horse of your's."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:

Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.

---

quote:

---

hostly warning
Hi Robertus Liverpolitanae,
accusations of of 'jumping on high horse'/boorishness are personal attacks on Parabiodox and out of order here. 'Fraid I'm not such a nice lady to commandment three violations!

---

I appologise to you, and Parabiodox, I hadn't meant to sound rude, just warn Parabiodox he might be getting himself into trouble (oh the irony..)

Also I appologise for the awful spelling and grammar in that post, must have had too much wine at lunch I think
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Ta very much!

L.

DH Host
 

---

Posted by parabiodox (# 12404) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:

Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.

---

Rubbish. Bits of the Anglican Communion are threatening to split from other bits over this issue. Only in a peculiarly insular mindset does this equate to 'a major split in the worldwide Christian Church'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by parabiodox:

Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.

---

Rubbish. Bits of the Anglican Communion are threatening to split from other bits over this issue. Only in a peculiarly insular mindset does this equate to 'a major split in the worldwide Christian Church'.

---

Does your worldview include Africa ?

---

Does your worldview of the "worldwide Christian Church" include anything beyond Anglicanism?
 

---

Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
The 'Homosexuality and Christianity' Dead Horse has been hosting a tangent about procreation and having children for a few days now. I started composing this post on that thread, but then decided that I'd put it here myself, rather than be asked to move it here by our esteemed DH Hosts

So, over on the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread, MerlintheMad is very interested in whether we know any gay, male couples who are in civil partnerships and who have adopted or are in the process of adopting.

My response is as follows:

Civil partnerships for gay couples have only been available in the UK for a little over a year. The process of being assessed and approved to adopt children in the UK usually takes a few months. If you really think that the number of civilly-partnered gay men who adopt is an important point to be considered in debate, you probably need to wait a few years in order for the statistics to be in any way meaningful.

Having said that, it's not clear that anybody will bother collecting and publishing comprehensive statistics about numbers of gay and straight couples adopting. I looked at adoption statistics yesterday on both the Office of National Statistics website and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering website. There weren't even readily-available statistics about how many children had been adopted by couples and how many had been adopted by single people. The statistics which get automatically collected are things like the sex of the child, the age of the child on adoption and the length of time which has elapsed between the decision of best-interest (a court decision that the child should be put up for adoption) and the child actually being adopted.

Personally I don't have any gay friends who have adopted or are in the process of adopting. But then, I don't have any straight friends who have adopted or are in the process of adopting, or are having babies either. I'm 25 and only a couple of years out of Uni. UK demographic trends suggest it will be a few years before my friends and peers (straight or gay) start acquiring children through any means. However, I am aware, through media sources, of two gay male couples who have adopted or are in the process of adopting. A couple of years ago Channel4 prdouced a documentary called Wanted: New Mum and Dad. Sadly, the webpage no longer gives very full details about the programme. However I watched the programme and one of the three children featured in the first episode, a 9-year old boy called Daniel, was placed for adoption with a gay male couple. (It's also worth noting that both Daniel and his social worker were delighted with this placement. Daniel had had a very intense relationship with his birth mother and his social worker had previously been concerned that this might have caused immense difficulties between Daniel and any potential adoptive mother. Daniel himself was just thrilled that his two new dads owned a convertible sports car .) Adoption UK is a UK charity focussing on adoption issues and on their website they feature the stories of various people going through the adoption process. Currently their 'Adopter Diaries' section includes the diaries of two lesbian couples looking to adopt and of one gay male couple who are looking to adopt.

I'm not sure what any of this proves. But it just seemed like interesting stuff to say in response to Merlin's question.
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
The 'Homosexuality and Christianity' Dead Horse has been hosting a tangent about procreation and having children for a few days now. I started composing this post on that thread, but then decided that I'd put it here myself, rather than be asked to move it here by our esteemed DH Hosts

So, over on the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread, MerlintheMad is very interested in whether we know any gay, male couples who are in civil partnerships and who have adopted or are in the process of adopting.

My response is as follows:

Civil partnerships for gay couples have only been available in the UK for a little over a year. The process of being assessed and approved to adopt children in the UK usually takes a few months. If you really think that the number of civilly-partnered gay men who adopt is an important point to be considered in debate, you probably need to wait a few years in order for the statistics to be in any way meaningful.

---

quote:

---

Having said that, it's not clear that anybody will bother collecting and publishing comprehensive statistics about numbers of gay and straight couples adopting.

---

quote:

---

Homosexuals, by the very nature of their sexuality, cannot go into their relationships with much, if any, concern for children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As important as this topic is to society at large, and adoption agencies, I cannot imagine such a study NOT being conducted sooner rather than later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...I assume before the fact, but, in fairness, am not averse to being shown wrong...

---

quote:

---

I expect statistics (when they come) to show that the male and female homosexual population are raising c. the same number of children, even though male homosexuals are much more numerous.

---

quote:

---

Merlin:
But I expect that male homosexuals raising children, as compared to female homosexuals raising children, is probably less common on the order of four or five to one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:

quote:

---

Merlin:
But I expect that male homosexuals raising children, as compared to female homosexuals raising children, is probably less common on the order of four or five to one.

---

Well, yes, dear. It's very simple. Monty Python voice: Where's the foetus gunna gestate? In a box?!

All a lesbian needs to have a child is a turkey baster, a vegemite jar and a willing donee. For gents, there is a bit more bureaucracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:
Well. You're asserting a statistic: lesbians four or five times more likely to have children than gay men, then contending that it is because women concern themselves more with children.

I am merely giving you a much more likely reason as to why there would be a disparity in the numbers of lesbians with children as opposed to the numbers of gay men with children.

---

quote:

---

Gay Donor or Gay Dad?
HRC Family Project, Nov. 19, 2006

The New York Times Magazine featured a lengthy cover story about lesbians and gay men having children and forming families together. The article focuses primarily on the roles of the gay men in these families. Some of the featured families are living as they originally intended, with the men serving in roles ranging from full-time dad to involved donor. The article also highlights challenges that may arise. Some of the men interviewed wanted to be full partners in parenting and are instead more like distant uncles; others wanted to play a limited role but are drawn into deeper parental engagement by changing circumstances.

Source: Gay Donor or Gay Dad? John Bowe, New York Times Magazine, Nov. 19, 2006.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
I'm interested, Merlin, on what your "statistic" about women kidnapping children more than men proves, if anything?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It proves nothing. It's just evidence that women are more naturally interested than men in children, in the responsibility of caring for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
I'm interested, Merlin, on what your "statistic" about women kidnapping children more than men proves, if anything?

---

It proves nothing. It's just evidence that women are more naturally interested than men in children, in the responsibility of caring for them.

---

quote:

---

MT:
Or, it is evidence that women are more willing to break the law than men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If the RCC is threatening to close its' adoption agencies, letthem go ahead. I'd rather that the children were not cared for by those who discriminate.

---

I'm not sure I'd go as far as that. I don't like the idea that church led adoption agencies can discriminate against gay people. I dislike it very much indeed. But to watch them closing which prevents children ending up in settled caring homes is an appalling thing to wish. By that you're condemning children to spending longer in care which cannot be positive.

---

Well, AFAICS, it is an utterly reasonable position to say to them that they must obey the laws of the land, whether or not they agree with them. The government, rightly or wrongly, have been elected. The Catholic church has not, and so the Catholic church has no mandate to impose it's views on others - such as the prospective gay and lesbian couples, and the children themselves.

...
If the agencies refuse to obey the law, they should be closed and those responsible for the infringement of the law should be arrested and charged with a formal criminal offence.

If these Catholic agencies are so concerned with the children's fate, they will come to their senses and work within the law and all this "we're gonna close!" will prove to be so much bluster. If not, then their claim to care for the children, primarily, will be shown to be so much bluster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It proves nothing. It's just evidence that women are more naturally interested than men in children, in the responsibility of caring for them.

---

Or, it is evidence that women are more willing to break the law than men.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by MerlinTheMad:
It proves nothing. It's just evidence that women are more naturally interested than men in children, in the responsibility of caring for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But difficulties aside, isn't my protest "here", that males are not as concerned about children in the first place, the actual contention?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It proves nothing. It's just evidence that women are more naturally interested than men in children, in the responsibility of caring for them.

---

Or, it is evidence that women are more willing to break the law than men.

---

Most convicted criminals are male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cqg:
Most single, never-been-married gay men that I know simply never considered the possibility of children because of the general antipathy of society towards them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
The son is a delightful lad and as well adjusted as any 14 year old...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
Did heterosexuals choose ?

Should they be allowed to adopt children ?

---

quote:

---

A Christian couple who say they felt forced into giving up their grandchildren for adoption said they would never have done so if they had known they would be placed with a homosexual couple.

---

quote:

---

There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved.

"With this in mind, the social work department has deliberately ignored evidence which undermines their decision and opted for politically correct posturing

---

What do others think? Is this case demonstrating anything new, or is it just the same old issues? (I must admit I haven't read the rest of this thread today, although I'm sure I've done so in the past)
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
If it was a couple demanding that children only be placed with pure blooded Aryans would you be so sympathetic?

The reason the children were put into foster care in the first place was because the grandparents refused to take out the court order necessary to keep the heroin addicted mother away from the children (source: Edinburgh Evening News).

I grew up in a home terrorised by a substance addicted parent - an alcoholic. Access visits used to fill me with terror. To be willing to expose children to those risks from their 'natural' mother and yet to run to the papers denouncing a carefully-vetted gay couple, who the children by all accounts like and are happy with, to me those are really badly-skewed values.

Christianity's sick obsession with gay people is a scandal. Heroin addict mommy must not be barred access with all the potential for grief that entails, but nice gay couple open their home and offer love and a family and 'Aaaaaaagh! Quick! Run to the Tabloids to monster the Gays and Social workers!'

This stuff makes me really angry, so I'll stop before I hammer a hole in my keyboard.

L.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I've been following this in the Telegraph (yes, yes, I know) and it looks rather different there. For one thing, the grandparents appear to have been threatened with never seeing their grandchildren again if they didn't agree to having them removed. For another, the stated reason for removing the children is that the grandparents are too old -- 70 (maybe, I guess) and 46...46 is too old to be a parent.

While I have a lot of sympathy for child welfare people, we've in this country had not a few cases where child welfare agency behaviour amounts to abuse. I'm kind of suspicious of people who want to remove children from a natural family for what appears to be doctrinal reasons, or to prove a political point.

FWIW, the mother is described in the latest reports as a "recovering" addict.

I really think they want to keep the kids, I don't think their primary motive is anti-gay. And I don't see this as about whether gay couples should be able to adopt. At all.

John
 

---

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I don't know the details of this case but its incredibly rare for children to be removed from families over here (I'm in england but I assume the same is in Scotland).

As a child I begged to be removed from my abusive situation but was deemed to be "coping" as I got excellent school results . Many children are in addict or alcohol dependant families and it does seem to be only in extremely dangerous situations are children removed, so it is highly unlikely that they were just randomly taken to make a political point.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 

quote:

---

If it was a couple demanding that children only be placed with pure blooded Aryans would you be so sympathetic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I've been following this in the Telegraph (yes, yes, I know) and it looks rather different there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smudgie:
I have to admit that I don't know what I think about homosexual couples adopting. I do know how difficult adopted children find it, simply being adopted and thus "isolated and different" within their school community. I also know how difficult they find it not having a father as I am a single parent. But I also know that for my children, being adopted by a single woman (even if it was me!) gave them a far far better chance in life and far greater love and security than a life in foster care could have done, no matter how good the foster parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flausa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smudgie:
I have to admit that I don't know what I think about homosexual couples adopting. I do know how difficult adopted children find it, simply being adopted and thus "isolated and different" within their school community. I also know how difficult they find it not having a father as I am a single parent. But I also know that for my children, being adopted by a single woman (even if it was me!) gave them a far far better chance in life and far greater love and security than a life in foster care could have done, no matter how good the foster parents.

---

So do you think it would be less "isolating and different" with a single parent than it would be with a two parent home in which the parents are homosexual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flausa:
So do you think it would be less "isolating and different" with a single parent than it would be with a two parent home in which the parents are homosexual?

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smudgie:
...I stated in my very first sentence that I don't know what I think. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough, nor experienced enough. Sorry if I did not make that sufficiently clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
And it is a bloody hard decision for social workers, believe me - I'm sure Flausa will back me up here.

Big love to foster/adoptive parents. Always.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smudgie:
I have to admit that I don't know what I think about homosexual couples adopting. I do know how difficult adopted children find it, simply being adopted and thus "isolated and different" within their school community.

---

quote:

---

These two man had invested so much of themselves in that child in spite of knowing that they would eventually be heartbroken. That, to me, is a fundamental/essential of parenting that many birth parents are lacking.

---

Annie, I believe very much that you're right when you say that it's about the rights of children, not the rights of potential parents. And the more same sex couples are on the scene as parents (however they become parents or adoptive/temp parents) the less society will struggle with it as odd.

I noticed in a mainstream drama last night, there was a mixed race couple, and although they were slightly self conscious about it [they were wonderful people without flaws] the story line wasn't about them being a mixed race couple. Not one comment from another character for them to overcome with dignity... That just didn't happen when I was a teenager. That's a huge shift in consciousness in 2 decades.

I don't know if it's already been said, but adoption by same sex couples has been allowed since 2006.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by annie parker:
And as this whole process is about children's rights and needs and not adopters rights, I would think that there must be great care taken about the selection of children who would be placed with gay parents, because of the additional problems that that might well cause them. it is not about any person having the right to adopt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I don't think anyone has the right to be a foster or adoptive parent. In fact, I'd go further and say that I wish everyone had automatic contraceptives installed that couldn't be released until they had demonstrated parenting ability, through knowledge testing and personality checks. We license drivers, but anyone can be a parent. Whether one actually parents is another matter, and one that keeps me in a never-ending flow of work.

---

 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 

quote:

---

And the more same sex couples are on the scene as parents (however they become parents or adoptive/temp parents) the less society will struggle with it as odd.

---

quote:

---

I would think that there must be great care taken about the selection of children who would be placed with gay parents, because of the additional problems that that might well cause them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by annie parker:


Then I have been talking about this with my bible discussion group this morning. And we had another thought, something that hadn't occurred to me before, which is, that where you live is very important.

We all came to the conclusion that in our small backwater town homosexual adoptions would not work for the child. As actually we couldn't even think of any openly homosexual couples, or even a homosexual single for that matter.

General feeling was that the child would be open to being too noticable and too vulnerable to being picked on. And there would be no escape for him or her, as for example, we have only one high school, and one small shopping centre. - (I do live on the far edge of nowhere).

---

So, out of interest, what are you going to do about it? If the town I lived in was so racist that it was the case that any black or mixed race family and their kids would be treated like this, then I'd be working to change that. When people in my church and society tried to stop the repeal of Section 28 I worked hard to write letters, and to donate to groups fighting it. To me it's just not good enough to say, 'Oh we live in an awfy homophobic place - there's nothing we can do about it.' It's especially important that Christians speak out on these issues because so often religion is used as an excuse to attack gay people and their families.

I think back to my own experience coming from a dysfunctional and abusive background and how much acceptance understanding and friendship I found as a teenager at University from the openly gay people I met. I found a lot of people who understood what I'd been through far more than many people from conventionally-accepted family backgrounds who often had little patience with a somewhat damaged weirdo. Perhaps you're missing out on what a gay couple might have to give which would more than outweigh the behaviour of people who'd pick on a child from a damaged background anyway, whoever was fostering or adopting them.

L.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
I was not saying that gay people do not have much to offer, or that heterosexual people cannot stuff up children. Hell that is why these kids are in care in the first place they have been damaged by their heterosexual families.

But what I have been trying to do is to work out how to deal with it when your ideologies and the realities of your situation in the real world do not match.

My thoughts have only ever been with the best solution for already damaged children, in the here and now of the world today. And however much we do not like it, the reality of the world now, is that there are sometimes compromises to be made for the sake of the children, because people are less than tolerant.

As I said before I do not want use already damaged children as agents of social change, just because I believe that the world should be different to the way it actually is.


but I would have thought that keeping open discussions about things like homosexuality is part of 'dealing with things'

----------------------------------------------
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Annie I appreciate what you're saying and I agree that it is always essential to keep the children at the forefront of the discussion. I guess that I am coming from the point of view of the social worker who works with kids who have severe behavioural challenges (yes, I'm a lesbian, but I think I made my views on who should be allowed to parent fairly clear a few posts back, and I do not except queer people from the contraceptive idea ).

Working where I do I see lots and lots of foster/adoptive parenting. I think I've worked with only one family where the child was still at home with Mum and/or Dad. I've worked with all kinds of parenting arrangements - solo, heterosexual, queer, mixed race... Almost all the kids I work are bullied (including the ones who are bullies themselves). What I see working to is parents giving clear boundaries, affection and support to deal with the vissicitudes of daily life at home.

It really doesn't seem to matter what the subject of the bullying is, its what happens when the child gets home. And in my experience there are strong or struggling parents in every category (straight, solo, queer, whatever) and children who are better or worse at coping in direct relation.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
Hi Arabella

I do know what you are saying but I suppose I am coming at it from the point of view of an adoptive parent who had children with severe emotional and behavioural problems, attachment problems, and esteem issues etc etc.

And it is great that support your families, but I have to say that the support we received once the children were legally ours, was less that enthusiastic, to say the least.

We had to find everything ourselves and fight for everything, every inch of the way. Social services attitude was 'we have done our job and got the kids adopted' and we have no more role now that we would in any family. Just go away and live your family life.

There were times when our family seemed only a weekend away from breakdown, and other adoptive placements that we knew did break down, and the children ended up back in care.

So I suppose that my views are coloured by all of that, as I can't imagine what it would be like if extra stresses where thrown into family situation. And how my kids would have coped if there was the extra factor to be bullied for.

That's why I came to the uneasy conclusion that in a large city with a variety of people and every sort of family make up etc the situation may be very different to small town, 50 years behind the times


---------------------------------------------------
 

---

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Again, not in a position to elaborate on views about homosexual people adopting children, just wanting to endorse what annie just said.

My pre-adoption support and immediate post adoption support was out of this world - I couldn't have asked for better.
But people move on.

And ask my about the support I get now in raising my kids. If it weren't for the fact that I'm reliant upon them for money, I'd tell them where to stick their label of "post adoption support". I've even been told by the social worker I went to for help that the problem is really because I'm a single parent. Hell, thanks. (No mention of the fact that a lot of hetrosexual couples split up because of the problems caused by adoption, nor that the reason I get no help from my adoption support group is that all their adoptions have broken down completely!)

Yes, some kids had to pioneer being adopted by single people. But they weren't alone - single parent adoption comes hand in hand with more families generally living only with one parent. And it isn't just about bullying - my youngest isn't bullied, in fact is quite popular and has a very supportive network of friends, but the conversation I had with him the other night about his sense of isolation and his estranged self image tore my heart to shreds. And "Why can't you have been married so that we can at least be like a normal family and I can have a dad" is a hard one to answer.

My friend's son went through being a pioneer when she left his father for another woman. He's not got the issues of adoption to cope with, but ask him how he feels about being a pioneer and I think he might tell you. And yes, it's better than being in a series of foster care placements, but try telling a kid who's unhappy that "it may not be perfect but at least it's better than..." It's like saying "Eat your cabbage - there are starving children in Africa". Is it right that his adoptive mum is single. No, it isn't. He would have been better placed in a family with two parents - my eldest son certainly would - but that option just wasn't available. But there again, it would have been better still if he'd been able to stay in the family to which he'd been born and be raised safe and secure. The trouble is, it is only with hindsight that the kids see the half of the glass which is full.. and full of really good stuff!

So what am I saying? I wish I knew! Seriously, I'm saying adoption is tough both on kids and on parents. Throw in another set of stressors - single parenthood, mixed race adoption, homosexual adoption (the latter of these being far less accepted in society - for right or for wrong - than the previous two) - and we really need to make sure that the people involved are tough enough for the job and have enough bloody support!!!!
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I agree with the importance of placing the children's needs first. However the sad reality is that children in care get bullied. They get bullied because they're in care. I swear I never ever ever want to hear someone singing the chorus of Nobody's child again ever. A child who is being moved between placements in the way they are in foster care is going to have to deal with that bullying without a strong home life to compensate.

If a child is adopted by a gay couple, and Arabella is right when she says they would have to be the most exceptional gay couple in the known universe, they may be bullied for this but at least they'll have the security of adoptive parents and a settled environment to balance this somewhat.

It's just not as simple as avoiding bullying. I guarentee you that every child in care is getting bullied.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Indeed - if bullying was a reason for LGBTs not to adopt, it would also be a reason for black people not being allowed to adopt.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Like I said before, big love to all foster/adoptive parents.

I work for a tertiary service - kids between the ages of 10-17 get referred to us on the basis of their behavioural issues. It isn't specifically a post-placement service, but it has made me horribly aware of how little post placement support there is for foster/adoptive parents. By the time I get these families, they're at the end of their tether dealing with the kids.

I know this is a slight tack sideways, but my heart goes out to family member fosterers - they get even less support, hardly any funding, and they're ususally having to protect the child from one of their own adult children or siblings (the parent). Social services say, "Oh, good, there's a family member putting their hand up, we can stop worrying". Wrong, wrong, wrong, particularly when they don't give that family member proper information about their rights as a carer, or don't follow up on the legal side of things so the carer is left at the mercy of the birth parents (a particular beef of mine at this very moment).

What I would want to know is if those who would question social services for placing a child with queer fosterers/adopters would support those kids and their new parents in becoming a family if it happened. I'm talking about sticking up for them in the public arena. So say you have the case arise in your small town, a fait accompli, would you give those queer parents your support, even if it was just sticking up for them in a conversation, or talking to them in the street or at a school meeting? Make the effort to get to know them, even?

If you can say yes to that, then I have no argument with you at all.
 

---

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Arabella, I'm not sure whether you're including me in that question but I hope you know me well enough to know the answer and I hope I've never given you cause to doubt the veracity of my words when I say that I would support any adoptive family 100%, regardless of their creed, colour, sexual orientation or shoe size, and if the odds were stacked against them, as I do believe they could be for a homosexual couple, then I would, as far as I were able, support them 150%.

(And yes, I know I'm a maths teacher and I know the numbers don't make sense, but I could think of no better way to say that I hope I am never found wanting in supporting anyone in the face of prejudice)
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Absolutely Smudgie!

It was a rhetorical question, perhaps not phrased as well as it might have been.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
Arabella

I have tried to make it clear that my confusion here is about where my ideology about how things should be, and concern as to how things work out in reality, are at odds.

I have never said that gay people do not have anything to offer or do not make good parents, or in fact should never be allowed to adopt. My concern has only ever been, as I said somewhere earlier, about any problems any children placed with homosexual couples might face.

I did say at one point that they would have to be selected very carefully because of the extra problems that can be made for them. Particularly where they would stand out like the proverbial 'sore thumb'.

I have talked a lot about concerns for the children and that the world can be a shit place at times.

And an individual's well being, comes before how I think the world should be, work with what you have got and where you are, not how you think things should be, is my starting point in things..

So support what you have got, yes.

But don't start me on social services and the lack of care with family - foster placements. And how social services don't like it, if families start to demand the same treatment as other foster carers!!

Good for you with your job, but love to those who don't get the support that you give. Life is just not fair for some children.

-------------------------------------------------
 

---

Posted by Harperchild (# 14017) on :
 

quote:

---

Leo said:
Indeed - if bullying was a reason for LGBTs not to adopt, it would also be a reason for black people not being allowed to adopt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by davelarge:
This is a copy of a post that was put on my uni bulletin boards, and I thought it would be good to get your opinion on the issue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harperchild:
Black people adopt black children. Back in the 70s (?) it was possible for white couples to adopt black children, but for all kinds of reasons it was not good, mostly becasue the kids' sense of fit and belonging was all messed up.

---

Wow. I am really surprised to learn that. I never knew that was the situation in the UK.
 

---

Posted by beachpsalms (# 4979) on :
 
Regarding the visibility of queer parents in rural communities: Just because you don't see us, doesn't mean we aren't there. Especially in single parent households; unless your gaydar is very, very good, or you know us very well, and we trust you enough to come out - How on earth would you know that my single parent family includes a lesbian mom?

One of the reasons I'm not terribly out is because I'm raising kids in a small town; but I'm also really aware that being queer is just one part of my/our social location; and at the moment, in our area, probably isn't as important as language, race, culture, employment, immigration status... so many other factors.
 

---

Posted by Harperchild (# 14017) on :
 
I was going to say, how the hell would you know? And decided not to on the grounds I'd get laughed at.

Sure, some people are more out than others - my sister and her partner run the only gay bar in Stroud, fly a rainbow flag and gave an interview on local radio within weeks of opening.
But even before that, my niece had confronted some homophobic remark at school by snarling, 'Shut the f*** up, my Mum's a lesbian.' which is going to get around.

But it seems to me, if people want to appear 'friends who share a house' that's how it's going to look. The average parents of any inclination don't usually hold hands and snog in the school playground when fetching their kids.

[ 10. February 2009, 20:44: Message edited by: Harperchild ]
 

---

Posted by Harperchild (# 14017) on :
 
LQ, does that mean, where you are, they don't take the kids' ethnicity into account?
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I can't say what they take into account but I definitely know more than one Caucasian couple who have adopted an African-American child. In fact, I have a cousin who is one such.
 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
One of my group home confreres in my teen years was a black (well, he later discovered, mixed) boy who had been adopted by a white mother and Chinese-Canadian father.
 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Sorry, missed the edit window: the boat girl at a local Anglo-Catholic shrine parish is the Asian daughter of white parents.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 

quote:

---

boat girl at a local Anglo-Catholic shrine parish is the Asian daughter of white parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Sorry, missed the edit window: the boat girl at a local Anglo-Catholic shrine parish is the Asian daughter of white parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beachpsalms:
I am leaning towards thinking that the "risk" of bullying is overblown by opponents of gay & lesbian parenting. (Yes, not just adoption; because when someone says that we shouldn't be allowed to adopt, it immediately bleeds over for me into condemnation of my ability to parent. Even when the opponent in question doesn't intend the spillover.)

---

Beachpsalms, without going any further into the issue in the OP, may I just reassure you that any debate about whether children should be placed for adoption with a homosexual couple does not actually hold any integral assumption that someone's sexual preferences make them a good or bad parent. There are heterosexual people I wouldn't allow within a metre's length of my children and homosexual people to whom I would gladly entrust the care of my children if I were ill or away for some reason.

The thing is (and please forgive me if I sound patronising, it's not intended... honest!) parenting adopted children, while in many ways is just the same as parenting birth children, in many ways is a totally different kettle of fish. Sometimes people who haven't experience of adopting find that hard to appreciate that, which can make for a lack of support in society - if one more person says "Oh, all children are like that" or "He's a boy, what do you expect?" to me again, I don't promise to hold myself responsible for the consequences! I think I do pretty well as a parent, actually, but if you asked me whether I think single parent adoption is a good thing, I'd have my reservations just as I do with homosexual adoption.

It isn't to do with bullying either - I think that's a bit of a straw man. It's more to do with the child's ability to identify with their family and with their peers - an intrinsic thing rather than an extrinsic one.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
Beachpsalms (I love your name I feel peaceful just reading it)



It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the parent, but about the particular issues that children who have been through the care system have.

Born-to children have a resilience and strength that adopted children do not have, because they have known consistent loving. And yes, I do know that that is a vast generalisation, but like many generalisations it has a basis in the truth.

Any child who has always had one/two loving parents of whatever colour/sexual orientation , will be in a better position emotionally to withstand the nastiness of the world, than children who have been dragged around the system.

It is those children and only those that I would include in this.


-----------------------------------------------------------
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
cross posted with Smudgie who I am following around posting after.

She has expressed in a much more eloquent way what I was trying to say, I agree 100%

 

---

Posted by beachpsalms (# 4979) on :
 
I didn't find that patronizing at all, and appreciate you reminding me that adoptive kids have their own particular needs.

However, I stand by my assertion that gay and lesbian people are not, by their sexual orietation less fit than heterosexual people to meet those needs.

And I'll cite the American Pyschological Association's policy statement on sexual orientation, parenting and children.

quote:

---

WHEREAS there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);

WHEREAS research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services;

---

quote:

---

Existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents, and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents, shows that common negative stereotypes are not supported (Patterson, 1995). Likewise, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are unfit parents have no empirical foundation (American Psychological Association, 1995).

A growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two parents who are gay or lesbian fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Evidence shows that children's optimal development is influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by its particular structural form (Perrin, 2002).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beachpsalms:

However, I stand by my assertion that gay and lesbian people are not, by their sexual orietation less fit than heterosexual people to meet those needs.

---

quote:

---

And children who are to be adopted are all very different to each other as well.

---

quote:

---

Now I would accept that she may well, if she were on her own, have been better placed as a only child with a single female parent.

But as a family group their needs were very different,

---

quote:

---

I have never said that gay people do not have anything to offer or do not make good parents, or in fact should never be allowed to adopt. My concern has only ever been, as I said somewhere earlier, about any problems any children placed with homosexual couples might face.

I did say at one point that they would have to be selected very carefully because of the extra problems that can be made for them. Particularly where they would stand out like the proverbial 'sore thumb'.

---

quote:

---

That's why I came to the uneasy conclusion that in a large city with a variety of people and every sort of family make up etc the situation may be very different to small town, 50 years behind the times

---

quote:

---

I can even see that some children who have been damaged by bad parenting from a female, may then thrive with consistant male parenting.

---

quote:

---

As previous have suggested there are all sorts of factors in this, children's age, previous life experiences, the sort of placement that they are currently in. Which all makes each situation a very individual one.

---

quote:

---

Or that some special needs kids need one working and one stay at home parent - again; lesbian and gay parents sometimes choose this configuration, just as straight couples do. Dan Savage and his partner, for instance.

---

quote:

---

Restricting the ability for the non-biological parent to adopt (have legal ties) to the child of their parent. This is very common for same sex partners, especially lesbians who use insemination. When I had my daughter, it was still the case in Ontario that the biological mother had to surrender her legal ties to the baby in order for her partner to adopt.

---

quote:

---

It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the parent, but about the particular issues that children who have been through the care system have.

Born-to children have a resilience and strength that adopted children do not have, because they have known consistent loving. And yes, I do know that that is a vast generalisation, but like many generalisations it has a basis in the truth.

Any child who has always had one/two loving parents of whatever colour/sexual orientation , will be in a better position emotionally to withstand the nastiness of the world, than children who have been dragged around the system.

---

quote:

---

Let each case be decided on it's own - but don't close the door on all the families for whom adoption protects their existing family configuration, or can build a family for a child for whom it is a good fit.

---

quote:

---

Adopting other peoples damaged children is difficult and not a right, for anybody, and that we have to take care that the right children are placed in the right situation. taking into account a lot of different factors.

---

You're right, annieparker, I unreservedly agree with this statement.
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
beachpsalms, I wish I was quick at posting as you!

I just want to make sure that I have said outright here. That the rights of gay people to birth children and legal rights over their partners children are, as far as I am concerned, exactly the same as those of heterosexual people. And that those children are in no worse or better poition than any other child



------------------------------------------------
 

---

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
You may be interested to know that I have recommended this thread to my tutor on my OU course - working with children and families - as we have to look at the structure of families, also anti discriminatory and antioppressive practise, and there have been many intersting comments. Mention of this thread even caused a debate in the Christian Fellowship in work!
 

---

Posted by annie parker (# 14454) on :
 
I just want to make sure that I have said outright here. That the rights of gay people to birth children and legal rights over their partners children are, as far as I am concerned, exactly the same as those of heterosexual people. And that those children are in no worse or better poition than any other child


I don't think I expressed properly here in my previous post what I was trying to say. (That's what happens when you post in a hurry whilst trying to feed families).

What was in my mind in that inelegant sentence was things like infertility, that infertile lesbian women have the same right to medical treatment etc as infertile heterosexual women.

Now it is late and I am going to bed before say anything else that doesn't come out like it sounded inside my head.



 

---

Posted by cqg (# 777) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by annie parker:
...but of the extra problems that society would have brought down on them, because of their parents.

---

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by annie parker:
...but of the extra problems that society would have brought down on them, because of their parents.

I find this presumption doesn't accord with my experience.

My partner's kids (effectively my step-kids) attend high-school and middle school in a conservative, suburban community in a conservative city in one of the reddest of red-states in the Union. Their friends think it's rather kewl they have two dads.

Why is this presumption taken at face value?

---

quote:

---

Adopting other peoples damaged children is difficult and not a right, for anybody, and that we have to take care that the right children are placed in the right situation. taking into account a lot of different factors.

---

quote:

---

went to university in the 70's in a time of Tom Robinson and 'glad to be gay' it was a time when we thought that the issues of gay rights was won.

---

quote:

---

Blanket bans are unhelpful to children or the professionals they serve. Blanket bans deny children the right to have their welfare being of first and paramount importance.

---

quote:

---

I have never said that gay people do not have anything to offer or do not make good parents, or in fact should never be allowed to adopt. My concern has only ever been, as I said somewhere earlier, about any problems any children placed with homosexual couples might face.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by annie parker:
...As has been said several times already (I think) in this thread NOBODY has the right to adopt, all sorts of factors come into play. Though yes all people should be eligible to apply adopt

And it is wrong if a whole group of people are barred from adopting just because of their race/colour/religion/sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wiff Waff:
The situation is that now, at least in the UK and at least in theory, nobody can be barred from applying to become adoptive parents just because of their race/colour/religion/sexual orientation/disability/etc.

---

quote:

---

For three years, neighbors in a quaint, middle-class community scarcely saw the lanky 16-year-old boy who lived with his adoptive mother and her boyfriend.

Now, they know why: According to authorities, the teen was brutally abused and held captive in his own home. Most recently, he'd been confined to a bathroom, locked from the outside and sealed with a piece of plywood over the window.

By the time he escaped last week, the Florida boy had a broken forearm and scars, scabs and oozing wounds that investigators say mark years of abuse.

<snip>

Last week, the abuse reached a new height, police said. According to an arrest affidavit, Gigliotti and Angelo discovered the boy had found a way to pry open a barricaded window and free himself with a piece of his clarinet.

The teen was forced to strip, and Gigliotti beat him with a piece of wood about three feet long, police said.

The authorities' account continues as follows: When the teen couldn't stand the pain, he grabbed the wood and held it. Gigliotti beckoned her boyfriend, who came in and took the wood away. She then beat him with the metal and plastic ends of a water hose.

After that, his hands were bound with packing tape. He was left nude and with cuts all around his body. The bathroom's electricity was cut, leaving him in darkness.

<snip>

Authorities took him to a hospital, where the full extent of his injuries were uncovered: His arm had been broken for at least three days and he had bumps, scratches, and oozing wounds. Repeated beatings had left scabs and scars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oremus:
As a gay man myself I say yes gay couples should be allowed to adopt but first mixed sex couples should be considered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oremus:
As a gay man myself I say yes gay couples should be allowed to adopt but first mixed sex couples should be considered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harperchild:
No one should stick a vulnerable child into a difficult situation into a volitile area. Unless it's the best possible option at that moment for that child.

---

-- emphasis mine.

That's the key, isn't it? It's always a tradeoff.

It's not like kids needing parents are spoiled for choice. The decision is whether a candidate parent (or parents, should the child be so lucky) is the best fit available. Assuming that the parent(s) have been vetted and judged fit, isn't that always preferable (for the child and for society in general) to institutionalization?

That's what makes me angry about the laws in Florida and Arkansas (and now being proposed in Kentucky) -- they sacrifice the potential good for the child for their ideology. Prospective parent(s) can move to another state. The child is stuck in the clutches of a bunch of mad ideologues.
 

---

Posted by cqg (# 777) on :
 
Ah. It all becomes clear, now.

It's all about the symbolism and trophies.

Are people so daft as to not be able to process that I may wish to have children and a family precisely for the same reasons they do?

God save us from your followers.
 

---

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
I have read the article you linked to, cqg.
Sometimes peoples' stupidity beggars belief!
 

---

Posted by Harperchild (# 14017) on :
 
Seconded.

I still don't get how, in the the 21st century, people are still referring to 'gay people' as if they were all just this, or just that.

It is completely legitimate to say 'some people are using children as trophies.' The vast majority of those people, incidently, are older hetrosexuals who want to prove they are still capable of fathering/bearing a child. Or who want heirs, or immortal life via a blood line.

<sigh>...
 

---

Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :
 
Just wanted to be able to say that I'm thrilled that the law will finally change in Florida.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Splendid.

I know many many parents. Some gay, some straight, some single, some in combinations that defy easy description. I also know their children and have seen then grow up through 18 years+ Can't tell a bit of difference in the outcomes of any of them. What matters is whether a child is loved and respected and learns to choose well and cope well, and sexuality is nothing to do with those skills.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
The cruel irony in Florida under the old law was that gay couples could be foster parents to children nobody else wanted, children who were HIV positive for example, yet if those children later tested free of HIV they were taken away from the couple. So let's see, by Florida's reasoning gays could be foster parents for the most challenging children, but weren't fit to parent "normal" children. The stupidity of prejudice is amazing. I'm very happy to see this law overturned. I'd love to see it reach the Supreme Court, however, just to put a stop to these other states indulging in the same level of stupidity.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
The biggest problem with laws like this is that they're based on the premise that heterosexual couples have inherently superior child raising abilities compared with homosexual couples, and yet the foster care system exists primarily because these children's opposite sex biological parents have fucked up so colossally as parents it required state intervention.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
According to a recent study published in Pediatrics:

quote:

---

METHODS: Between 1986 and 1992, 154 prospective lesbian mothers
volunteered for a study that was designed to follow planned lesbian
families from the index children’s conception until they reached adulthood.
Data for the current report were gathered through interviews
and questionnaires that were completed by 78 index offspring when
they were 10 and 17 years old and through interviews and Child Behavior
Checklists that were completed by their mothers at corresponding
times. The study is ongoing, with a 93% retention rate to date.
RESULTS: According to their mothers’ reports, the 17-year-old daughters
and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in
social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower
in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem
behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach’s normative
sample of American youth. Within the lesbian family sample, no
Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent
offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently
unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still
together and offspring whose mothers had separated.
CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother
families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
But why on earth would they want to? I would have thought the whole point is to rejoice in being something different - not to ape the boring marrieds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
I'm afraid I must have given the wrong impression in my last post. Re-inforcing stereotypes was certainly not the intention - far from it. Indeed, I write from a position of considerable respect and genuine curiousity.

My point was that the gay community offers a refreshing break from the assumption that one has to be married and have a family to be valid. This pernicious view is still out there in the hidden agenda in many job application forms and the obsession with 'family' worship in churches, although I admit that things are getting slightly better in some, but by no means all, parts of the globe.

A gay person is perfectly capable of fathering/mothering a child and I have no doubt that a loving home would benefit that child, whoever the parents.

But I just can't help feeling that to do so shows a lack of imagination. Isn't it more fun to stare evolution in the face and just laugh? Were I to be gay I would enjoy being a player of the Glass Bead Game and see myself as hugely superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But ironically you seem to be telling homosexuals the same thing but in the exact opposite direction: that it's somehow WRONG for them to choose to be conventional in their lifestyle. Shoehorning homosexuals into being non-conventional is no better than shoehorning heterosexuals into being conventional.

---

Conventional, perhaps, but with a flair of fabulosity. We have a reputation to uphold, after all.
 

---

Posted by GodWithUs (# 15919) on :
 
Quite. Conventional does not necessarily have to equal boring, after all.
 

---

Posted by GodWithUs (# 15919) on :
 
Oh, and to answer the OP's question, as a married gay man with two daughters I say, duh.
 

---

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GodWithUs:
Oh, and to answer the OP's question, as a married gay man with two daughters I say, duh.

---

My daughters let me know that many things are icky, too. Particulary the fact that their mom and I might've had sex a few times!

[ 02. October 2010, 20:38: Message edited by: Christian Agnostic ]
 

---

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
Likely at least as many as there are offspring, no doubt.

Us GLBT folks have to resort to other avenues.

Bottom line, there is no shortage of children needing loving homes. Those who can provide them ought to be able to (yay! back to the OP).
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0