homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Being christian, it is my role to judge.
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leviticus 18: 22 - 23

quote:
But does this not suggest that God didn't want Homosexuals to have children or be parents?
The verse in question says nothing about parenthood. Nothing at all. It's describing a practice, not a category of persons. Children in same-sex relationships are not produced by anal sex which is the practice this scribe considers to be unclean. The verse is simply irrelevant to this discussion.

L.

[ 21. May 2006, 01:07: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishkle
Shipmate
# 11381

 - Posted      Profile for Mishkle   Email Mishkle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 142 | From: United States | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As has been shown, the Leviticus passages you cite are sandwiched among a whole host of biblical passages that most Christians choose to ignore (shrimp, pork, blended fabrics, not shaving, et al). So, why do you elevate that particular verse over the others?

Furthermore, and more on-topic, I get the impression that you don't approve of homosexual acts. That's your prerogative, and you can judge til you're red in the face for all it matters to this discussion. That's a whole other dead horse that's been flogged and resurrected so many times it has its own stall.

Given that you don't approve of their lifestyles, what's so particularly heinous about responsible, monogamous homosexual couples raising children who might otherwise be left in foster limbo? Are you afraid that the kids might be led to believe that their parents' life is "OK"? Are you afraid they, the children, might become gay themselves? Or (and I suspect this is the case) are you afraid that allowing homosexual couples to adopt will just be one more step towards social acceptance?

Or is there some other reason I haven't thought of...?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mishkle
Shipmate
# 11381

 - Posted      Profile for Mishkle   Email Mishkle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Was that directed at me or Marton? Or both?
(Please say both)

Posts: 142 | From: United States | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412

 - Posted      Profile for Amy the Undecided   Author's homepage   Email Amy the Undecided   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the warm welcome, folks.

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.


Would that it were acceptable! In my country, thousands of same-sex couples are banned from adopting, and there ain't exactly a groundswell of public opinion to turn that around. But here on this board, you do seem to be in the minority, so go ahead and enjoy the moral righteousness of the underdog.

You have not answered my question about what kind of marriage is right, according to the Bible and according to you.

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.
I don't believe that any person is righteous in the eyes of an absolutely righteous being. We all sin.

quote:
How then can any promiscuous couple so called behave righteously?
This thread is about whether the state should permit same-sex couples to adopt children. It is not about whether the state should permit promiscuous people to adopt children.

You seem to use the terms "homosexual" and "promiscuous" interchangeably. It is not only sloppy reasoning, but extremely rude for you to suggest that because someone's partner is of the same sex, that person is promiscuous. In fact, it's quite absurd. Two people who live together and are each other's sole sexual partners for 40 years are the exact opposite of promiscuous.

Even if one grants, which I obviously don't, that sex between two people of the same sex is by definition sinful, it is also sloppy reasoning to single out this "failing" as one that should disqualify one from adopting. And not just because the state is not a church and should not impose (a particular brand of) Christianity on its citizens, but because there are countless ways to do wrong, and you know what? Every single one of them is practiced by some of the world's adoptive (heterosexual) parents. Are we going to ban stingy people from adopting? People who exploit their workers? IMO, the state has an obligation to hold adoptive parents to a higher standard than it holds biological parents, and it does exactly that, but it doesn't require moral perfection. Yeesh.

You may think that homosexuality is a worse sin than not giving to charity or exploiting the poor, but you're on very shaky Biblical, not to mention moral, ground.

--------------------
The world is too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love. ~William Sloane Coffin

Posts: 263 | From: Northern California | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The above was initially directed at Marton, but feel free to respond. It was mostly just a thought in the general direction of people of that particular view.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Mishkle,

I can't speak for Corpus Cani but I think that my reaction to your claim that Leviticus states that God doesn't like homosexuals is the same reaction that Corpus Cani had. His response to you wasn't an act of pedantry.

Here's your response to him:

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.
This seems to imply that the reason he objected to your claim was that he was making the point that a man having sex with another man doesn't mean he's gay. Leaving aside that debate for now, I don't think that's the point he was making.

The point is that Leviticus says nothing about God hating homosexuals. It says that sex between two men is an abomination. You seem to be equating the one with the other, as though the two as one and the same thing. They are not.

A heterosexual man is not heterosexual simply because he has sex with women. It is perfectly possible for a heterosexual man to have sex with nobody, and to live a celibate life. That doesn't make him any less heterosexual.

In the same way, a homosexual man is not homosexual simply because he has sex with men. It is perfectly possible for a homosexual man to have sex with nobody. That doesn't make him any less homosexual.

I know that seems off-topic but I think this incorrect assumption of yours is strongly flavouring your position, as can be seen here:

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.
Chosen to live their lives in what manner? The thread is about whether homosexual people should be allowed to adopt children. How can you know what "manner" a person lives in just by knowing that the person is homosexual?

Five manners of living:

a) A homosexual person can go out every night, picking up two other people and having threesomes at various people's houses.

b) A homosexual person can be living in a loving, stable, sexual, monogamous, relationship with another person.

c) A homosexual person can be living in a loving, stable, non-sexual relationship with another person.

d) A homosexual person may happen to be single, not looking for a relationship but not being averse to the idea.

e) A homosexual person may choose to live a celibate life for religious or other reasons.

You cannot know what manner a homosexual person lives in simply because you happen to know that he or she is homosexual, any more than for a heterosexual person.

Yet, according to you, Leviticus says that people in all of the above are hated by God simply because they are homosexual. It doesn't say that. It only refers to the act of men having sex with men. It doesn't say anything about homosexual people.

Would you say that nobody in any of the situations above should be allowed to adopt simply because he/she is homosexual? That's what it seems like.

If that isn't what you mean, then please realise that being gay doesn't mean having sex with someone of the same sex. It doesn't mean having sex at all. It's a state of being, not doing. Your language so far has implied that the two are the same thing, and they are not.

Corpus Cani wasn't being pedantic. He was asking you to say what you mean. That isn't pedantry, it's a simple request for accuracy for the avoidance of unnecessary hurt and ease of communication.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mishkle
Shipmate
# 11381

 - Posted      Profile for Mishkle   Email Mishkle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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.

This discussion is wearing me out.

Posts: 142 | From: United States | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318

 - Posted      Profile for craigb   Author's homepage   Email craigb   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I recently saw a Four Corners program about children being born with both genitles. In Australia according to this show it is one childe out of every 500 born. Normally the doctors make the child as a boy. More often then not, these children then are found to carry either a dominant male or female chromosomes.

In watching this show, with people on it telling their stories, one man who always thought he was a girl, through the freedom of information act found out that he was born with both sets of genitles and was made a boy. What was frightening about this is his parents did not know the little op had been carried out by the doctors at the hospital and had not known that he was born with both sets.

While I do not like homosexuality, and I do not condone it, I have to say that if this program is true about what it was saying, then I can't say those people are homosexual if the doctors got it wrong to begin with.

--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.

Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
I don't understand your point. You seem to be using a certain reading of that book to castigate me for speaking against it.

My point was, that it's all very well reading something written in a book, but truth is lived, not read about, in my opinion.

And better theologians than me can point out that the translations used in any of the english language bibles (especially the AV) are massively failing in many parts of the bible, in especially in this case. Better theologians than me will also say that any text needs to be understood in their context, not just understood as definitive truth.

Oh and to castigate people for being gay is also to castiage people for being born Jewish, Romany, Heterosexual, Male or Female.

We've mostly given up using the bible to castigate Jews, let's stop with Homosexuals. Let's speak out when Bishops and others discriminate against them. Or when they get attacked and killed.

[ 21. May 2006, 11:37: Message edited by: Liverpool fan ]

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.


Mishkle, I really hope this wasn't meant to be as offensive as it sounds. There are plenty of gay people who, for whatever reason, do not participate in sexual intercourse. For instance, I know of (I admit I don't know them personally, but people will be along soon who can provide personal examples) clergy and other religious, straight and gay, who remain celibate because this is their vocation.
In addition, some gay people believe God condemns the act, not the person, and so remain celibate.

Why should gay people by any different to straight people in this regard?


quote:
originally by Mishkel

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

Would you say God doesn't like you? That he doesn't like anyone?
We ALL do things that God hates - we do not love our brothers and sisters, we do not love our neighbour, we gossip, we lie, we put other things before God.
This does not mean that God doesn't like us.
Do you regard homosexual acts as a worse sin than any other? If so, perhaps you could provide some basis for that idea?

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412

 - Posted      Profile for Amy the Undecided   Author's homepage   Email Amy the Undecided   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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! [Biased] )

- - - -

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.

--------------------
The world is too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love. ~William Sloane Coffin

Posts: 263 | From: Northern California | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Actually, I know many such people.

Many of them are Anglican priests who have taken their vow of obedience seriously. One of them is an Anglican monk who takes his vow of celibacy seriously. Most of them are lay people (and some clergy) of other churches who try to live their lives according to what the Church requires of them: some because they actually believe that homosexual sex is sinful and others because, regardless of their own personal beliefs, they see the Church's teaching as a greater authority than their own individual reasoning. Yes, I personally know people in all of these situations, and know of others through other contacts.

In any case, such people are not as thin on the ground as you seem to be implying. In Christian circles, they often run the risk of being ostracised simply because they are gay, even though they are living their lives according to the Church's teachings, simply because some Christians judge them on some bizarre misconception that all gay people are having sex with one another. Then in gay circles, they are often viewed with contempt for having "betrayed the cause" or having been "brainwashed". In many cases, they see it as a matter between them and their confessors/spiritual directors, and, therefore, nobody else's business.

The result is that many people tend not to know that they are gay, and even for those whose sexual orientation is known, they tend not to discuss these issues with many people except people in the same situation or others whom they feel they can trust to be supportive. To take your lack of knowledge of their numbers as evidence that they don't exist is like saying God doesn't exist because you've never seen him, which is, of course, no basis for reasonable argument unless you're claiming to be omniscient, which I don't think you are doing.

In fact, as has been pointed out earlier on the thread, if your attitude is that God hates/dislikes gay people, celibate or not, then I'm not surprised you're not aware that there are many, many gay people who work towards, and live lives of celibacy. Chances are you're not at the top of their list of people they feel they can approach.

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.
I'm bemused about the Christian understanding of God that says he makes a point of disliking people within a Christian context. If we take homosexual sex being sinful as given, does that mean God dislikes the people who engage in it? Does God dislike people who steal, or murder, or habitually harbour ill thoughts about people? Or does he love them and long for their return to life in him? That's another thread, I suppose.

quote:
This discussion is wearing me out.
This is the reason I have personal policy of not engaging in discussions like these. They tend to wear me out spiritually, and leave me in a bad way. It's just that I had been so pleased to see your enthusiasm when you joined the Ship, as our PM exchange showed, and then I saw you spouting this sort of thing here, and I was a little taken aback.

I'll return to my more usual practice now.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

It's one of those irregular verbs isn't it?

I am proving my point from Scripture
You are quoting out of context
He is regurgitating a Chick tract.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Qoheleth.

Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265

 - Posted      Profile for Qoheleth.   Email Qoheleth.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
...or (charitably) extremely circumscribed life experience to date.

Q.

--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.

Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

John 8:4-11
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."
They caught the woman in the act of adultery. She broke one of the freaking Ten Commandments. How much more righteous can you get? But Jesus still says such judging is wrong. A person may make judgements about how they live one's own life and haul all those nasty planks out of one's own eyes, but judging and punishing others by making their lives miserable -except in the civic realm of law- is not our business.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318

 - Posted      Profile for craigb   Author's homepage   Email craigb   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Lyda, that part of Jesus problem was that they said they caught this women in adultery.

Where was the man, and who was the man committing adultery with her. Perhaps he was in the crowd, perhaps not. One thing Jesus was not doing though was condoning her sin, as he says often in the Gospels, "Now GO, and sin no more"

--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.

Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Roll Eyes]
I know confidential stuff about themm so I believe them.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leo, check your irony meter. [Smile]

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

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Corpus cani

Ship's Anachronism
# 1663

 - Posted      Profile for Corpus cani     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Confused]

Cc

--------------------
Bishop Lord Corpus Cani the Tremulous of Buzzing St Helens.

Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishkle
Shipmate
# 11381

 - Posted      Profile for Mishkle   Email Mishkle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 142 | From: United States | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louise

[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

Auntie Doris x

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once again [Overused] Louise.

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Liberty

ship's football fanatic
# 713

 - Posted      Profile for Liberty   Email Liberty   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt, undoubtedly"

Posts: 1879 | From: SW2 to 20009 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412

 - Posted      Profile for Amy the Undecided   Author's homepage   Email Amy the Undecided   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishkle:

If you want kids, do it the natural way.

Yeah, so kiss off, all you infertile men and women! God didn't mean you to have children. If He had, He would have made a world with adoption agencies and infertility clinics in it . . . oh wait.

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

Who's this "we"? This world looks to me like it contains plenty of people who were created to be unable to conceive children, and plenty who were created to love people of the same sex. You may despise them, but that is no reason to think their creator does.

The old "Homosexuals can't be parents" (Bob R's statement from way up near the top of this thread) argument is patently false. Not only can gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals conceive children just fine, but the biology-is-destiny argument begs the question, which was about adoption. Anyone can be a parent, and most of us can be good ones. The question is whether we will be allowed to be.

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.

Your belief is your belief, but if you are going to convince people here, you are going to have to provide some evidence. (Does that insistence show you a side of me you don't like?)

Sure, having two parents of different sexes is great, assuming they love you and each other. It would also be great for a child to grow up in the country, to grow up in a city, to have lots of siblings, to be the only girl among brothers, to be the oldest, to be the youngest, to have no siblings, etc. None of these things are requirements for health and happiness. Despite what Tolstoy said, happy families are not all alike. Many of them have no male adults, or no female adults in them.

--------------------
The world is too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love. ~William Sloane Coffin

Posts: 263 | From: Northern California | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishkle:
I'm not posting on this thread anymore.

Oh, good. Because is you kept up with the kind of nonsense you've been posting, I'd be joining Louise in her hell call.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it's infertile or incapable of breeding then it's fate accompli. Fertility clinics be damned.

On the one hand we have "overpopulation" and on the other we have fertility clinics. Ethicists are obviously keeping the pharmeceutical industry afloat these days, what with all the valium prescriptions being filled.

It's interesting to me the way western society is ordered. We had the suffragette movement demanding the vote for women. Then we had feminism gather much steam in the sixties and then women litigated to be allowed into men only activities. Now of course women have their women's only clubs.

We are now watching a minority group demanding and getting what the "breeders" have as a natural consequence.

Everybody wants what everyone has and you know, it's their freakin'right. The only rights we have are those we bestow on each other. In that sense homosexuals have the right to have children. The courts say so. That does not make it right.

These things taken in isolation look one way, but when taken as part of the world picture, make a lot more sense.

Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Marton:
quote:
If it's infertile or incapable of breeding then it's fate accompli. Fertility clinics be damned.

Just who is the first "it" in "If it's infertile or incapable of breeding...", may I ask? I take the second "it's" refers to a situation. Used as you used it in the first instance, it can only be a person or an animal. And since the discussion has only about people, I can only infer that you are calling a class of people "it". Do you only consider homosexual people or also physically infertile people as being beneath a human pronoun? Either way I consider your attitude to be one of writing off significant portions of humanity as less than human.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

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?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've opened a Hell thread for the delight of all involved. Marton, this is your call to Hell.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?



[ 23. May 2006, 07:05: Message edited by: Marton ]

Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it's "heterosexual couples yes," then why did you say

quote:
If it's infertile or incapable of breeding then it's fate accompli.
What was the point of this comment? What argument were you trying to make or to support? I truly don't get it.

And what, exactly, does celibacy have to do with adoption? It may be that the only righteous choice a homosexual person can make would be to be celibate. But what, exactly, does this have to do with adopting children? This thread isn't about whether a homosexual person should be sexually active or celibate. It's about whether they should be allowed to adopt children. Arguing that they should be celibate doesn't prove that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt chidren.

Try spelling out the syllogism:

Homosexual people should be celibate.
Therefore, homosexual people should not adopt chidren.

Can't you see that there are a few steps missing between that single, lonely premise and the conclusion? It looks like the missing premise is "celibate people should not adopt children." If you added that to your argument, the conclusion would follow logically, if the premises were true. But if you don't want to assert that celibate people should not adopt children, then your argument is not an argument at all. It's just nonsense.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

I said it here. Read it again. Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes

[ 23. May 2006, 07:35: Message edited by: Marton ]

Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Husband? I thought you two split up?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marton:
I said it here. Read it again. Homosexuals should NOT be allowed to adopt. Heterosexual couples yes

Yeah yeah yeah. but WHY?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

It was a genuine question!

OK, as pennance I promise to read the whole thread and try to find something useful to say by the end of it. It may take me several lunchtimes, though.

Dave
8o)

PS - Karl - yeah, funny how these things happen!

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim   Email Duo Seraphim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)

Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332

 - Posted      Profile for Marton         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim   Email Duo Seraphim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
I am not following your logic because I disagree with it. Your logic lacks internal consistency - I just tested it to destruction.

Bare assertion is not argument, you know.

--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)

Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools