|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?
|
|
|
MaryO
Shipmate
# 161
|
Posted
His viral load has been undetectable for yonks. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Hanging around off and on since 2001.
Posts: 349 | From: New York City | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
UKCanuck
Shipmate
# 10780
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MaryO:
I talked to them last year, and asked how M. was doing. The dad I was talking to sighed and said, "Oh, I don't think he's long for this world." I gasped and asked, "Is he sick? What happened?!"
Dad: "Adolescence. I might kill him."
I love it! I'm a gay dad and mine are 10 and 12. I have all this to look forward to. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"No, the Canadian flag does not look like a giant nosebleed, so put that thought out of your mind right now." - Will & Ian Ferguson
Posts: 148 | From: Cardiff, Wales | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by UKCanuck:
I love it! I'm a gay dad and mine are 10 and 12. I have all this to look forward to.
God grant you strength and patience!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...large numbers of people appear to prefer invasive, uncomfortable and expensive fertility treatments to the simple expedient of adoption.
Having supported friends through the adoption process it is neither simple nor expedient - it is however a process established to assess the suitability of adults to provide a safe, nurturing home for children. Surely that assessment needs to rest on more than the sexuality of the people involved? The partner relationships of the adults concerned form part of the picture but certainly shouldn't be the whole picture.
In looking at outcomes for children a secure, loving home is generally going to be better than being shunted around. If it was a child of mine I know what I would want for them.
--------------------
' 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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Does the catholic church really think that children are better off in orphanages or with crap hetty couples than with any of those awful loving and stable gay and lesbian couples?
How is asking them to consider gay and lesbian couples to infringe their Catholic conscience? The government is not telling Catholic priests to go and have a gay affair, assuming they are not already having one, which some of them are, so how their conscience is being infringed by this is something I do not "get".
Does the Catholic church have this problem with all couple who are "against it's teaching", or just with gays and lesbians?
Mind you, I am not a Catholic and consider that a persons sexuality has pretty much nothing to do with their parenting skills. So maybe I am being unfair.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Marton:
A single homosexual, living celibately, in my view should suffer no obstacle to being an adoptive parent.
Thank you for that concession at least.
I know a number of lesbians couples who have made an excellent job of raising their kids. To suggest that these kids have somehow suffered, more than children with only one parent, children in orphanages, or children with with abusive, hetrosexual parents is just, *searches for word* *finds it*, bollocks. I see remarkably little evidence that their childhood is infringed in any meaningful way whatsoever.
You can't tell me that that all the hetrosexuals and celibate homosexuals I know are better than all the gay and lesbian couples are at raising kids. It's bullshit.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If the RCC is threatening to close its' adoption agencies, letthem go ahad. I'd rather that the children were not cared for by those who discriminate.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as that. I don't like the idea that church led adoption agencies can discriminate against gay people. I dislike it very much indeed. But to watch them closing which prevents children ending up in settled caring homes is an appalling thing to wish. By that you're condemning children to spending longer in care which cannot be positive.
Well, AFAICS, it is an utterly reasonable position to say to them that they must obey the laws of the land, whether or not they agree with them. The government, rightly or wrongly, have been elected. The Catholic church has not, and so the Catholic church has no mandate to impose it's views on others - such as the prospective gay and lesbian couples, and the children themselves.
Can I claim that my personal, private beliefs make murder a nessecity for me, so that I ought to have an "exception" and be allowed to commit murder? Of course not.
If the agencies refuse to obey the law, they should be closed and those responsible for the infringement of the law should be arrested and charged with a formal criminal offence.
If these Catholic agencies are so concerned with the children's fate, they will come to their senses and work within the law and all this "we're gonna close!" will prove to be so much bluster. If not, then their claim to care for the children, primarily, will be shown to be so much bluster.
[ 26. January 2007, 11:53: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
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.
Is it given from this passage that only those practicing idoloatry become homosexuals?
Or, might there be other causes that, if applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, would not bar homosexuals since it does not bar heterosexuals?
And, I think the RCC is bluffing in the UK about adoption. The reason? They tried the same bluff in San Francisco when the city required domestic partner coverage. As resolution was found that allowed the city law to be upheld without breaking church teaching.
[added missing word]
[ 26. January 2007, 21:03: Message edited by: The Bede's American Successor ]
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Checking the letters to the Edoitor of The Times, I came across this missive from the Chairman and one of the Directors of Affirming Catholicism.
I particularly liked their comment that quote:
All the archbishops have achieved is once more to give the impression that to be Christian is to be anti-gay.
Their stance is that the best interests of the child are paramount, and those interests may be best served by "a loving same-sex couple in a stable relationship".
Suits me. Why does it not suit the Archbishops?
The letter which follows, from an adopting gay man, gives some perspective as well.
[ 26. January 2007, 23:04: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I am a born-again bible banger (for those who do not know)...and since i had the misfortune to be raised in a rainbow colored part of the world ![[Biased]](wink.gif) , I am unable to say that gays should not adopt. Even after reading a blog from a guy who is gay, Catholic and thinks that gays should not be able to adopt. Why?
Because I have seen a friend of mine smoking pot with her foster dad growing up. The ideal parents don't seem to show up wanting to adopt much except pristine babies like MT said back earlier. Handicapped children, wheather they be physically or mentally, are given the shaft, straight up.
So I think on a gov't level, let them adopt.
Chances are high sometimes of parents who just want the cash from the gov't getting the child...like my friend's were. They were open about that bit of information. Bastards.
I also have seen a million other stories...of huge abuse. Love covers a multitude of sins. Saying "just let them eat cake" is the same thing as saying "since homosexuality is seen as a sin in the bible interpetation I take, don't let them adopt". Why don't then we screen out the alcoholics then as well? or the whitewashed tombs?
[eta: wink symbol, just in case somebody reads this and is not used to me. thx.]
[ 27. January 2007, 01:00: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Duchess, face it. You are a fluffy-bunny liberal.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I wish people would as much sense as you do, duch, even in your rambling way.
And ken has your number, I'm afraid.
--------------------
"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
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
And to think I actually worried my post would be offensive.
Okay, no mo' fluffy bunny comparisons or I am going to have to go get a mohawk or something.
I feel like a panda bear in a police outfit.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
It was an issue here a couple of years back when the Territory government introduced legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt. I remember my church at the time prayed that "this evil legislation" would not be passed. I couldn't, for the most part, see what the fuss was about. I don't really have a problem with the government allowing homosexual couples to adopt; from what I can see, they don't seem to get on any better or worse than other couples. As to kids brought up in such families, well, I don't know any, so I can't comment. I do tend to think that growing up in a family where the father and mother fill roles bearing some resemblence to conventional male / female roles is probably best for children, not because my upbringing was perfect but because I think being in a lopsided family did great psychological damage to my sister and I, from which neither of us has really recovered. But that doesn't always happen, and trying to force one or both partners to play a different role to the one they are suited for would be very counterproductive. I can't see why the average gay couple coundn't, between them, demonstrate the various facets of a human relationship that a child usually sees from its two parents.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
My general impression is that the "evil" to be prayed against is that of kids growing up in an environment where same sex unions are considered normal and exceptable.
They're corrupting the children! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I reserve the right to pass on all my prejudices and hatreds to my children without hindrance or contradiction, dammit!
(one 'p' too many!)
[ 29. January 2007, 03:22: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
I don't understand the anxiety about this non-existent "social experiment".
What's ironic (and tragically funny) about this whole fuss is that gay men and lesbians have been parenting and grand-parenting for nearly as long as straight people have.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
My general impression is that the "evil" to be prayed against is that of kids growing up in an environment where same sex unions are considered normal and exceptable.
Didn't you know that all liberals worship Abaddon and live to serve his will?
Run for the hills!
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
My general impression is that the "evil" to be prayed against is that of kids growing up in an environment where same sex unions are considered normal and exceptable.
Didn't you know that all liberals worship Abaddon and live to serve his will?
Run for the hills!
How do I run from myself? Oh, yeah, I'm an American librul, which makes me palely conservative by Brit standards. Even if I believe gays should be able to adopt. Where was I running again?
And I can't believe I wrote "exceptable" instead of acceptable. Doh!
--------------------
"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
No worries, Papio. I understood you perfectly. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
mmmerangue
Apprentice
# 12355
|
Posted
I think that Homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, so long as their sexual orientation does not affect the welfare or the choices of the child. Any Gay couple (sorry if that word offends anyone but its a whole 7 letters shorter than 'homosexual' and i'm lazy) would be just as risky a choice for adopting a child as any normal couple, the fact that they are gay makes no difference to their ability to raise a child. some points I agree on from previous posts:
1. Plenty of children are raised by a sole parent or 2 same sex people who are NOT a couple, how is that different from a homosexual couple? Not at all so far as I can see.
2. Hetero parents have gay children so it can work the other way - there was a great episode of Less than Perfect which i thought dealt with this issue hi-lairiously, where the camp-but-not-gay guy has to come out to his lesbian mothers as NOT gay. I would expect a gay couple to be open to whatever their children can throw at them, after all they came out once and know how hard it is.
3. Children are put through horrible stuff by their natural parents every day, and every person adopting a child goes through personality tests and all that jazz so (if they pass, it's quite difficult to) they are probably going to make better parents than many who are allowed their children just because they're 'theirs'.
4. Millions of children are orphaned or abandoned in the world. Without parents, without guidance, they have nothing to look up to and little to look forward to. ANY couple who is willing to offer light and life to these children should be taken into account, and sexual orientation should play as small a part as shoe size in the decision whether to accept them as new parents.
If I were to take this in a context with christianity - If the child is a baby or toddler, its not going to know any better, and it doesnt matter. if the child is older and aware of it's parents and their religion, and their religion was forcefully against Homosexuality, then adoption by a gay couple would cause friction in the family and should probably be avoided. thats the only reason i can think of why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
PS, WOO! first post. probably my first one EVER to have meaning...
--------------------
...I have Sqandered my Existance for a pocketful of Mumbles- such are Promises, all Lies in Jest, till a Man Hears what he Wants to Hear and Disregards the rest...
Posts: 7 | From: Coldstream, Scotland | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
parabiodox
Apprentice
# 12404
|
Posted
I am suprised for a supposedly serious discussion board that the issue of homosexuality should be consigned to a section called 'dead horses' as if the issue has somehow been resolved and is now just boring.
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Or is that not important ?
I have published several articles on homosexuality on my website, in particular I would draw people's attention to an article supporting an e-petition currently submitted to 10, Downing Street in the UK.
Support religious exemption from pro-gay adoption laws
http://recycledart.org/drupal-5.0-rc1/node/98
This is the petition, I would be interested to hear what people think:
From http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Adoption-choice/ -
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Allow adoption agencies the freedom to work according to the dictates of their conscience when finding adoptive parents for children. Also respect that the preference that children be given a home with a mother and father is not anti-homosexual discrimination. "
--------------------
http://www.parabiodox.com
Life is at the center of a paradox.
Posts: 24 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
Hello parabiodox, I'm sure someone wiser and more experienced than I will pop along in a minute, but it might be worth reading what the 'Dead Horses' board is all about. It's not for issues that are resolved, but for issues that are decidedly unresolved! If you read back over this thread, you'll see how much lively debate this issue produces.
Might be worth reading the site's 10 commandments too.
[ 05. March 2007, 20:51: Message edited by: Earwig ]
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
I am suprised for a supposedly serious discussion board that the issue of homosexuality should be consigned to a section called 'dead horses' as if the issue has somehow been resolved and is now just boring.
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Or is that not important ?
I have published several articles on homosexuality on my website, in particular I would draw people's attention to an article supporting an e-petition currently submitted to 10, Downing Street in the UK.
Support religious exemption from pro-gay adoption laws
http://recycledart.org/drupal-5.0-rc1/node/98
This is the petition, I would be interested to hear what people think:
From http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Adoption-choice/ -
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Allow adoption agencies the freedom to work according to the dictates of their conscience when finding adoptive parents for children. Also respect that the preference that children be given a home with a mother and father is not anti-homosexual discrimination. "
Hi Parabiodox,
Welcome to the Ship. Do have a thorough look around our many boards and carefully read the guidelines for each one before posting.
As you are new here, can I suggest that you carefully re-read both the guidelines for this board which explain the thinking behind it, and the overall board rules: the 10 commandments which you agreed to abide by when you signed up. In particular, may I draw your attention to this one, before you get off on the wrong foot.
quote:
8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
That includes promoting petitions for campaigns here, so please don't.
The netiquette on this particular board is to read either the whole thread before posting or the last ten pages of any thread, and to engage with and reply to what other people have said or argued before you.
If you have a question about the entire concept of this board then the place to raise that is The Styx board.
By the way, you will find specific-enough topics touching on gay-related issues discussed on the main Purgatory board, but the broad questions of whether gay sex, marriage or adoption per se are right or wrong belong here on this board. Follow the guidance of the hosts on that and you'll be fine.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 05. March 2007, 22:01: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
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
|
|
parabiodox
Apprentice
# 12404
|
Posted
Reply to Moderator
If I'm only allowed to respond to particular posts and I can't start a new topic how am I suppose to raise a topic that's definately not a dead horse ?
What is Christianity if it's not a crusade ?
What crusade isn't personal ?
What you mean is, don't rock the boat.
That's obviously one of the reasons where it's called Ship of Fools.
Now it's your forum and you can do what you like with it, just don't pretend it's somehow furthering the cause of Christianity.
You can't deal with issues by pretending they don't exist.
What you call a 'dead horse' is a subject of controversy between the UK government and the Catholic Church and Church of England right at this moment.
But let's not get worked up about matters of faith eh ?
A Ship of Fools indeed.
Chris Swift
--------------------
http://www.parabiodox.com
Life is at the center of a paradox.
Posts: 24 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robertus Liverpolitanae
Shipmate
# 12011
|
Posted
Awh, ain't 'e bold!?
Do like the nice lady says and read around a bit more before you jump on that high horse of your's. There's plenty or real impationed debate, we just avoid being boerish. You're heading for Hell. Must be a new trend, all these newbie's going straight there
--------------------
Once the Government approves something, it stops being immoral
Rev Tim Lovejoy
Posts: 558 | From: homeward bound | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
I have too much free time.
I think that this recent debate in Purgatory might be of interest here.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Discussion of the policy of the Ship of Fools and the actions of hosts belongs in the Styx. So, I'm just going to re-state the policy here in response to parabiodox. If anyone wants to discuss this, start a thread in the Styx.
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
Reply to Moderator
If I'm only allowed to respond to particular posts and I can't start a new topic how am I suppose to raise a topic that's definately not a dead horse ?
"Dead Horse" is a board on the Ship for the discussion of a limited range of topics that are actively debated on virtually every Christian forum on the web, and in the church beyond. More specifically, those subjects where there's no obvious agreement in sight. We have these threads here in Dead Horses to encourage debate of them, and to prevent discussions of related subjects descending back to the same old arguments. If there's another related subject you wish to discuss you're free to start a new thread on the appropriate board (usually Purgatory). If you're not sure if your proposed thread is too close to the dead horse threads feel free to contact a host or admin for advice. If what you want to discuss is already under discussion on an existing thread then starting a new thread is superfluous, and the new thread will be closed with discussion directed to the existing one.
quote:
You can't deal with issues by pretending they don't exist.
What you call a 'dead horse' is a subject of controversy between the UK government and the Catholic Church and Church of England right at this moment.
We have this board specifically to debate issues. None of the issues here are being "brushed under the carpet" or otherwise ignored. It's the very fact that the subjects here are matters of contraversy within the church and beyond that they're here to be discussed. As I said, if you have a related subject you want to discuss (eg: whether the UK government should listen to the churches on this issue) feel free to start a new thread in Purgatory, preferably phrasing the question so that it's specific and won't go straight to "is homosexuality OK?" or "is it OK for homosexuals to adopt children?".
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
parabiodox
Apprentice
# 12404
|
Posted
"Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:
Awh, ain't 'e bold!?
Do like the nice lady says and read around a bit more before you jump on that high horse of your's."
At least it's not a dead horse.
And I did read around the site and could find no mention of this UK petition, which by the way is not mine, and is backed by the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
So I thought it was pretty relevant to the discussion.
"There's plenty or real impationed debate, we just avoid being boerish."
One post. Information not mentioned before. Revelant to the discussion. Boerish ?
Chris Swift
--------------------
http://www.parabiodox.com
Life is at the center of a paradox.
Posts: 24 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
parabiodox
Apprentice
# 12404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
Reply to Moderator
just don't pretend it's somehow furthering the cause of Christianity.
Chris Swift
Unfortunately I have to repeat it in order to apologise for it.
I apologise for this remark, it was uncalled for.
I allowed my anger over this issue to get the better of me.
Sorry.
Chris Swift
--------------------
http://www.parabiodox.com
Life is at the center of a paradox.
Posts: 24 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I'm sure the other 12000-odd members who, between them, have contributed about 4700 postings (in Dead Horse alone) on topics relating to homosexuality and religious understanding will appreciate your company.
[ 06. March 2007, 20:50: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
"Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:
Awh, ain't 'e bold!?
Do like the nice lady says and read around a bit more before you jump on that high horse of your's."
hostly warning
Hi Robertus Liverpolitanae,
accusations of of 'jumping on high horse'/boorishness are personal attacks on Parabiodox and out of order here. 'Fraid I'm not such a nice lady to commandment three violations!
This also goes for others tempted to make personal attacks/arguments - remember these belong only on the Hell board.
cheers,
Louise
hosting off
(Parabiodox, if you wish to argue with someone about personal remarks they have made, you need to take it off thread and to the Hell board. As you're new, that might not be obvious. Oh and many thanks for the apology which I've just spotted and crossposted with)
[ 06. March 2007, 21:04: 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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Another suggestion: Please go to the first page of the "Homosexuality and Christianity" thread. The thirteenth post on that page summarises all too accurately a very large part of the discussion on this topic, despite there being another 3600 postings after that event (which occurred about 6 years ago)
I'm sure each of us has particular favorites among the various responses. Mine tend to be the ones where the "victims" of the "anti" side spell out just how thoroughly they are ignored, cast aside or attacked by people who claim to have "Christian" values -those values that do not include exhibiting any love for their neighbours.
If you do not want to have any chance to see that there is another side, differing from your view of this issue, I would suggest you stop reading. But you cannot say that the issue has benn set aside on these boards.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Rubbish. Bits of the Anglican Communion are threatening to split from other bits over this issue. Only in a peculiarly insular mindset does this equate to 'a major split in the worldwide Christian Church'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robertus Liverpolitanae
Shipmate
# 12011
|
Posted
Posted by Louise: quote:
hostly warning
Hi Robertus Liverpolitanae,
accusations of of 'jumping on high horse'/boorishness are personal attacks on Parabiodox and out of order here. 'Fraid I'm not such a nice lady to commandment three violations!
I appologise to you, and Parabiodox, I hadn't meant to sound rude, just warn Parabiodox he might be getting himself into trouble (oh the irony..)
Also I appologise for the awful spelling and grammar in that post, must have had too much wine at lunch I think
--------------------
Once the Government approves something, it stops being immoral
Rev Tim Lovejoy
Posts: 558 | From: homeward bound | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ta very much! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
L.
DH Host
--------------------
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
|
|
parabiodox
Apprentice
# 12404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Rubbish. Bits of the Anglican Communion are threatening to split from other bits over this issue. Only in a peculiarly insular mindset does this equate to 'a major split in the worldwide Christian Church'.
Does your worldview include Africa ?
Here are just a few links to back up my comments I could list many more.
"Church seeks unity on gay rights
The Communion has been in crisis since the liberal American branch of Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church, ordained an openly gay bishop in 2003." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6396181.stm
"Public view us as sex obsessed, archbishop tells Anglican synod
The archbishop pleaded with the worldwide Anglican communion once more to stay together, rather than splitting further into warring factions." http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2022229,00.html
--------------------
http://www.parabiodox.com
Life is at the center of a paradox.
Posts: 24 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
UKCanuck
Shipmate
# 10780
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by parabiodox:
Might I remind people that the worldwide Christian Church faces a major split over this issue.
Rubbish. Bits of the Anglican Communion are threatening to split from other bits over this issue. Only in a peculiarly insular mindset does this equate to 'a major split in the worldwide Christian Church'.
Does your worldview include Africa ?
Does your worldview of the "worldwide Christian Church" include anything beyond Anglicanism?
--------------------
"No, the Canadian flag does not look like a giant nosebleed, so put that thought out of your mind right now." - Will & Ian Ferguson
Posts: 148 | From: Cardiff, Wales | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
The 'Homosexuality and Christianity' Dead Horse has been hosting a tangent about procreation and having children for a few days now. I started composing this post on that thread, but then decided that I'd put it here myself, rather than be asked to move it here by our esteemed DH Hosts
So, over on the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread, MerlintheMad is very interested in whether we know any gay, male couples who are in civil partnerships and who have adopted or are in the process of adopting.
My response is as follows:
Civil partnerships for gay couples have only been available in the UK for a little over a year. The process of being assessed and approved to adopt children in the UK usually takes a few months. If you really think that the number of civilly-partnered gay men who adopt is an important point to be considered in debate, you probably need to wait a few years in order for the statistics to be in any way meaningful.
Having said that, it's not clear that anybody will bother collecting and publishing comprehensive statistics about numbers of gay and straight couples adopting. I looked at adoption statistics yesterday on both the Office of National Statistics website and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering website. There weren't even readily-available statistics about how many children had been adopted by couples and how many had been adopted by single people. The statistics which get automatically collected are things like the sex of the child, the age of the child on adoption and the length of time which has elapsed between the decision of best-interest (a court decision that the child should be put up for adoption) and the child actually being adopted.
Personally I don't have any gay friends who have adopted or are in the process of adopting. But then, I don't have any straight friends who have adopted or are in the process of adopting, or are having babies either. I'm 25 and only a couple of years out of Uni. UK demographic trends suggest it will be a few years before my friends and peers (straight or gay) start acquiring children through any means. However, I am aware, through media sources, of two gay male couples who have adopted or are in the process of adopting. A couple of years ago Channel4 prdouced a documentary called Wanted: New Mum and Dad. Sadly, the webpage no longer gives very full details about the programme. However I watched the programme and one of the three children featured in the first episode, a 9-year old boy called Daniel, was placed for adoption with a gay male couple. (It's also worth noting that both Daniel and his social worker were delighted with this placement. Daniel had had a very intense relationship with his birth mother and his social worker had previously been concerned that this might have caused immense difficulties between Daniel and any potential adoptive mother. Daniel himself was just thrilled that his two new dads owned a convertible sports car ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) .) Adoption UK is a UK charity focussing on adoption issues and on their website they feature the stories of various people going through the adoption process. Currently their 'Adopter Diaries' section includes the diaries of two lesbian couples looking to adopt and of one gay male couple who are looking to adopt.
I'm not sure what any of this proves. But it just seemed like interesting stuff to say in response to Merlin's question.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
The 'Homosexuality and Christianity' Dead Horse has been hosting a tangent about procreation and having children for a few days now. I started composing this post on that thread, but then decided that I'd put it here myself, rather than be asked to move it here by our esteemed DH Hosts
So, over on the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread, MerlintheMad is very interested in whether we know any gay, male couples who are in civil partnerships and who have adopted or are in the process of adopting.
My response is as follows:
Civil partnerships for gay couples have only been available in the UK for a little over a year. The process of being assessed and approved to adopt children in the UK usually takes a few months. If you really think that the number of civilly-partnered gay men who adopt is an important point to be considered in debate, you probably need to wait a few years in order for the statistics to be in any way meaningful.
I agree. My purpose in asking the question, "do *you* know any homosexual male couples adopting children", is, to point out the disparity (which I assume before the fact, but, in fairness, am not averse to being shown wrong), between females and males in their interest in rasing children. Heterosexual couples (90% of them anyway) raise their own biological children, more or less successfully in "the family way." Homosexuals, by the very nature of their sexuality, cannot go into their relationships with much, if any, concern for children. Children may enter into the relationship later, via adoption, or artificial insemination. And, as noted on the other thread, a number of now-practicing homosexual men have their own biological children in custody from earlier heterosexual marriages (relationships), and are rasing them with their "boyfriends." But I expect that male homosexuals raising children, as compared to female homosexuals raising children, is probably less common on the order of four or five to one. In other words: I expect statistics (when they come) to show that the male and female homosexual population are raising c. the same number of children, even though male homosexuals are much more numerous.
quote:
Having said that, it's not clear that anybody will bother collecting and publishing comprehensive statistics about numbers of gay and straight couples adopting.
Thanks for the info!
As important as this topic is to society at large, and adoption agencies, I cannot imagine such a study NOT being conducted sooner rather than later.
(btw, I read your minibio in your signature link. You have my sympathy, and understanding, such as I can offer by this medium. I appreciate your considerations about biological children. Nobody can possibly judge you if you choose not to have children. I also sympathize with the boyfriend who wants children, his own. What an impasse.)
[ 10. April 2007, 18:24: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Homosexuals, by the very nature of their sexuality, cannot go into their relationships with much, if any, concern for children.
Bullshit. Of course one can go into a relationship with a concern for children.
There are many people who start a relationship with the desire to have children (through IVF with a woman or children from a previous marriage). There are dating and relationship site and organizations that exist to help men who want to do this, meet each other.
--------------------
"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 MerlintheMad:
As important as this topic is to society at large, and adoption agencies, I cannot imagine such a study NOT being conducted sooner rather than later.
Um, why? What do you think you're going to discover with statistics? Let's say your statistics show that in a given year, 250 heterosexual couples, 50 single females of any sexuality, 50 single males of any sexuality, and 50 same-sex couples adopted children, what does that information tell you? All it tells me is that more children got a home and a family because marital status and sexuality were not used to automatically reject potential adoptive parents. 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
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...I assume before the fact, but, in fairness, am not averse to being shown wrong...
Merlin, you surprise me. Over on the 'Christianity and homosexuality' you showed great aversion to being shown wrong, as well as considerable stubbornness in accepting things which might show you to be wrong.
quote:
I expect statistics (when they come) to show that the male and female homosexual population are raising c. the same number of children, even though male homosexuals are much more numerous.
Personally, I consider conjecturing the future existence of statistics to be an unfruitful line of thought.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Teufelchen,
This is getting a tad personal. Please desist or take matters to Hell.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses host
--------------------
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
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Merlin:
But I expect that male homosexuals raising children, as compared to female homosexuals raising children, is probably less common on the order of four or five to one.
Well, yes, dear. It's very simple. Monty Python voice: Where's the foetus gunna gestate? In a box?!
All a lesbian needs to have a child is a turkey baster, a vegemite jar and a willing donee. For gents, there is a bit more bureaucracy.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
quote:
Merlin:
But I expect that male homosexuals raising children, as compared to female homosexuals raising children, is probably less common on the order of four or five to one.
Well, yes, dear. It's very simple. Monty Python voice: Where's the foetus gunna gestate? In a box?!
All a lesbian needs to have a child is a turkey baster, a vegemite jar and a willing donee. For gents, there is a bit more bureaucracy.
But difficulties aside, isn't my protest "here", that males are not as concerned about children in the first place, the actual contention?
I have even been asked to produce evidence (aka "a scientific study" of some kind) to support my belief that women are more nurturing (mothering) than men. Yet you seem to be advancing the notion that the real cause of the disparity in numbers of homosexual males to females -- raising children, that is -- is because women carry the "box" around with them, and can choose to get pregnant. Whereas men must "borrow" said-box, which is less likely to occur: granted, men are less likely to (conveniently) get pregnant without a devoted female companion.
There are adoption agencies, and there are earlier heterosexual relations, e.g. failed marriages as has been pointed out, where the man has custody of his own biological child(ren). And if men are just as eager to raise kids as women are, typically speaking, then the inconvenience of not having your own "box" is only that: an inconvenience, not an insurmountable barrier to natural desire.
The missing children notices I get several times a week in my junk mail: if an adult is involved, i.e. also missing, it is almost always a woman. Why is that?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
