|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?
|
Charam
Shipmate
# 10979
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332
|
Posted
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.
A single homosexual, living celibately, in my view should suffer no obstacle to being an adoptive parent.
On a different note, the word homophobe really has legitimised moral objection hasn't it?
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marton:
A single homosexual, living celibately, in my view should suffer no obstacle to being an adoptive parent.
Right. How about if they weren't celibate? And would you impose the condition of celibacy on a single heterosexual person?
quote:
On a different note, the word homophobe really has legitimised moral objection hasn't it?
I personally have issues with that particular word, because the usual meaning is so far removed from what it "ought" to mean as to be, to my pedantic mind, an abuse of the language. I'm quite happy to use another word for people who hold a bigotted opposition to a person purely on the grounds of their sexual orientation if you can suggest one.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332
|
Posted
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.
Blah blah blah. Just read Romans 1 from about verse 24 to 28
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
And Romans 1 says precisely what about gay people adopting?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332
|
Posted
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?
Em, read it again.
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332
|
Posted
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.
It's a sad fact that nearly everybody here underlines posts with snide comments.
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.
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
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.
Even if I grant, for the sake of discussion, that homosexual sex is sinful - what does that have to do with the question of whether or not homosexuals (who may or may not be having homosexual sex) can adopt children?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jinglebellrocker
Shipmate
# 8493
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
For I know that my Redeemer lives,and at the last he will stand upon the earth. - Job 19:25
Posts: 243 | From: Madisonville, Tennessee | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412
|
Posted
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.
And he was one of the righteous. Once again I have to wonder at the Bible as a foolproof guide to ethical behavior. Y'all aren't making it sound like a very good one. "Here, have my daughter"? How about "Here, have me," a**hole? (That's Lot I'm calling names, not you, Jinglebellrocker.)
The question is open as to whether Lot thought that raping a man was worse than raping a woman, or that as a host he had an obligation to protect his guests by offering up his own property (for so his daughters were). Judges 19:23, which tells a similar story, suggests the latter is the case.
But you're entitled to think that homosexuality is a sin. I very much appreciate that you don't think our secular legislatures should adopt your particular theology lock, stock and barrel. I also appreciate that you use more nuanced logic than "Blah blah blah."
--------------------
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
|
|
Marton
Shipmate
# 11332
|
Posted
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.
I addressed the secularity side of things re homosexuals earlier on. And I agree with you on that point.
Re Your point about some christians not believing it to be wrong? I'm not sure what you're getting at with that point. But I'll say this; I believe that some are homosexual and that's the way they are. I don't believe in their trying to change that either. But I do believe they should be celibate. But if you're referring to so called "christian homosexual couples"? Then I have to say according to their stated faith they're in error. Refer to the scriptures on that one.
I personally don't care who somebody else is in bed with, but as this is a board where such things are discussed, and from the experience I've had on this board, I use the word "discuss" lightly, then it's my view that I'm expressing.
Posts: 89 | From: gone for good | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Marton, if you don't like the snide comments, perhaps you should omit them from your own posts?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
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.
It wasn't a snide comment, it was a "why is this issue one that should determine whether a couple can adopt or not when other things that could be considered sin, which are much more prevalent in my own and in other "good" christian's lives, are not similarly considered".
You seem now to be taking the stance that single, celibate homosexuals should be able to adopt but that those living in a stable, loving relationship shouldn't be able to because they are "living in error". I'm not homosexual but I have been deceitful, I've broken promises, disobeyed my parents, I'm not a merciful person and I could go on and on. Why should I, who similarly live in error every day of my life, be eligble to adopt a child while you would argue that homosexuals shouldn't. Unless I've missed something you don't seem to be interested in dealing with that one.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liberty
ship's football fanatic
# 713
|
Posted
karl, i believe if davelarge does spend all his time reading this and not doing his phd, we may split up!
--------------------
"I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt, undoubtedly"
Posts: 1879 | From: SW2 to 20009 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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>
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
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. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
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
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by eyeliner:
Righteousness now has something to do with your ability to raise a child?
I hope that raising a child well is a righteous thing to do.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.D. Olivaw
Shipmate
# 9990
|
Posted
I was reminded of chive's excellent post when I read this article today.
--------------------
We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness -Thich Nhat Hanh
Posts: 496 | From: I'm a leaf on the wind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So let me see if I understand this correctly:
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?
I have several friends (gay couples and singles) who have adopted. They are the ones who took in the children no one else wanted (crack addicted, minority, HIV+, fetal alcohol syndrome).
Am I correct in understanding that keeping them in institutional care was better?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
I have mixed feelings about gay adoption insofar as I am only in favor when married couples are unavailable.
Not saying that I agree with your stance, but even if I did, the problem is that married couples aren't available. The situation on the ground is not that there are just a few children in foster care to be adopted and tons of straight couples are being cheated out of adoption by those nasty gay couples. The situation is that a lot of kids - particularly "special needs" kids - remain in foster care, shuttled from home to home, because there aren't enough people to step up and adopt.
Oh sure everybody wants to adopt the pristine white newborn, and maybe there aren't enough of those to go around. But would you deny the harder-to-place kids a home just to make sure the pristine white newborns go to heterosexual couples?
Which brings one back around to the question of whether or not even the pristine white newborns are arguably better off in a heterosexual home than a homosexual one (if you'll allow me the use of those rather loaded terms). Which is far from being demonstrated.
Theoretically, perhaps, it's better for a child to grow up in a home with at least one adult member of each gender, and see a healthy relationship between the sexes modelled by the adults in their home. But many, many children don't see a healthy relationship between the sexes modelled in their home, but rather just the opposite. And it seems to me that is far more damaging than growing up with two mommies or two daddies could ever begin to start to have an inkling of being.
No, the argument against gay couples adopting is primarily one about the sexuality of the parents, and attempting to marginalize and punish them. If it were really about what's best for the children, there are tons of issues that have far more impact on the well-being of children for the naysayers to put their energy into. That they don't tells you all you need to know about their motivation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Crab
Apprentice
# 12250
|
Posted
Thanks to Professor Kirke for quoting Romans 2. 1-5. I don't quite know whether this is really speaking to the topic. I hope it's not attacking the person, but I can't help thinking, Mishkle, since you are from New Zealand, and possilby you too Marton from Australia, will have heard of Graham Capill from the Christian Heritage political party? The gent who went round preaching about Christian family values and how New Zealand law should be based on the Bible? Really disliked gays, and implied that they were child molesters? And then it turned out that he himself had been sexually abusing little girls? How shocked all his devoted followers were! Well, it came as no surprise to anyone who's ever taken Psychology 101. Beware anyone who takes the moral high ground anyone and goes around condemning others. Graham Capill was a prime example of someone seeing the mote in his brother's eye and not taking the beam out of his own. Mishkle you should take note and stop judging people. Unless of course you are sinless yourself.
Posts: 10 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
The Crab -
Welcome to the Ship and to the Dead Horses Board.
However, as you clearly suspected, your post on this thread is considered to be a personal attack on Mishkle.
By the rules of the Ship to which you agreed when you signed up, personal attacks are restricted to the Hell Board.
An apology to Mishkle on this thread would be appropriate.
Also this post is very much a tangent - i.e. it is not relevant to the subject matter of the thread. Normally this would not attract any hostly intervention unless it got out of hand, but it is worth mentioning this time.
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Crab
Apprentice
# 12250
|
Posted
Aye aye sir. Mishkle, my apologies if I offended you in any way. I didn't mean in any way to suggest that you are a hypocrite. But I am extremely surprised that anyone from New Zealand, with such a recent horrible example of Christian failure before them, would continue to stigmatize one group of sinners as worse than others. Have we not learned to apply the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant to ourselves?
I also can't help being reminded that every year I recieve a generous tax rebate from the Government, mostly thanks to donations to my church. It seems to me every single tax payer in the country contributes to that, including glbt. Seeing I am indebted to them for that, it strikes me as ungenerous to deny them equal rights under the law.
Said my piece, unless more apology warranted. Will check out t'other thread if I want to say any more.
Posts: 10 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genevičve
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
Just a bit of personal history here: I grew up in the home with the requisite two heterosexual parents....unfortunately they both were alcoholics, my father exhibited very disordered, violent behavior due to a brain injury, and my mother was abusive as well.
So, I really get tired of hearing about how two straight people are the best environment for children. The best environment has nothing to do with sexual orientation, IMO, but with the character of the individuals involved.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Word up, Daisy.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Agreed, DaisyM. But I think the opponents of gays adopting children would probably say that being homosexual, or in a homosexual relationship, is a character flaw. Mind you I disagree with that position, but I think that is what they might say. I am open to correction from someone who thinks gays oughtn't adopt, but that there is no character flaw involved.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I have heard that position argued, Mousethief, on the grounds that - even if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - it is still healthier for a child to have both a male and female parental influence. This is not an argument I agree with, but I have heard it nonetheless.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I would have thought that it went without saying that abusive parenting is bad. I would guess that most people would agree that it is a bad idea to place a child in the home of people who were likely to abuse the child. The reasons for this are that the agencies seek to place the child in the best possible situation (whatever that might be). 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. Of coursse children can succeed in those situations, but it's not ideal. Why should adoption agencies be forced to place a child in a home which is less than ideal? I can see situations where it might be best for a child to be adopted by a homosexual person (or perhaps even persons), but we already know that such a situation is not ideal.
I would oppose legislation that made it illegal for a homosexual person to adopt in any circumstances, but would also oppose legislation that elevated the lesser to be equal to the greater.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
Research on gay households/gay parenting shows that children do every bit as well as children brought up in heterosexual families. So your comments about 'something less' would appear to be misplaced.
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think the problem is, Komensky, that the incidence of children in care leaving school with no qualifications and ending up sleeping in shop doorways or in prison is such that almost any kind of home is preferable. Unless there is solid empirical evidence that gay couples are a worse environment than a care home then gay couples ought to be able to adopt, irrespective of where you stand on the gay rights issue, unless you can provide a sufficient number of eligible straight persons instead. The evidence is that you can't - large numbers of people appear to prefer invasive, uncomfortable and expensive fertility treatments to the simple expedient of adoption. There were something like 3-4000 adoptions in the UK last year, there are something like 600,000 children in care.
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.]
[ 24. January 2007, 11:51: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.]
Amen! Preach it Brother Callan. It's not a choice between "happy Ozzie -n- Harriet home" and "home with fornicating gay people who only want to raise children to be interior designers". It's "gutter with drug paraphernalia" or "nice home with gay couple". I'd say there's no question about what's better there.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Thank you, Laura.
For the benefit of the US insomniac who will happen upon this page in a couple of years time and wonder why I'm having a pop at Catholics, (and Komensky who may well wonder why I've dragged the Catholic Church into a disagreement with him) the Catholic Church in the UK is currently opposing changes to adoption legislation which will forbid discrimination against gay couples seeking to adopt and it was the Archbishop of York's rather weaselly performance on The Today Programme (nearly called it The Today Show which is much more apt) was clearly in my mind when I composed my closing peroration.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I am annoyed that the C of E archbishops have rallied in support of the RCs. If I remember correctly, the (Church of England's) Childrens' Society decided to allow lesbians and gays to adopt 'their' children, even though it lead to some parishes cancelling donations from Christingle services and the like.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryO
Shipmate
# 161
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hanging around off and on since 2001.
Posts: 349 | From: New York City | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
