Should Gays be allowed to adopt????

[Evanescence]

Should our fellow human friends that perfer the company of the same sex be allowed to adopt children???

This has been quite a debate and maybe Mark can shed some light on his thoughts...

I am unsure how I feel about it....

GO! :D

[middletree]

Leaving Scripture out of this, there are plenty of studies that make a clear case that kids are better off with both a mother and father in the house. Of course, you can't legally mandate this, or every single mom in the nation would be a criminal. But it's still a valid point in this argument about gay adoption.

Like you, I'm torn. I am quite sure that kids are better off not being raised by gays, but I am also sure that there are a lot of people allowed to raise kids that have no business doing so.

[jrmitch]

As one who has friends in the workplace who are gay I honestly believe that there are some in the gay community who would make wonderful parents. And in the case of the gay folk I know, I'm also positive that they would not try to raise an adopted child to be gay; rather, they would encourage that child to think for his/her self and make their own decisions regarding their sexuality.

However, as much as I admire the character traits of those friends who are gay I struggle with gay adoption, because Gods design is for both a mother and father in the home. The only problem is, we humans - both gay and straight - have done a wonderful job of screwing up Gods original design. And I also know that I would trust the care and upbringing of a child to one of my friends who is gay a whole lot more than I would to some parents that I know. Guess I'm in the same boat with everyone else: I'm unsure.

[Jesuslove]

Leaving Scripture out of this, there are plenty of studies that make a clear case that kids are better off with both a mother and father in the house. Of course, you can't legally mandate this, or every single mom in the nation would be a criminal. But it's still a valid point in this argument about gay adoption.

Like you, I'm torn. I am quite sure that kids are better off not being raised by gays, but I am also sure that there are a lot of people allowed to raise kids that have no business doing so.
The reality is that there are half a million kids in the system who haven't been adopted. I believe until we find enough two-parent homes willing to adopt these children, we should not limit qualified applicants from adopting.

[musicjaytee]

The only problem is, we humans - both gay and straight - have done a wonderful job of screwing up Gods original design.
That is a wonderful statement. Love it.

[Grank]

how can we not allow people to adopt when they've legally done nothing wrong??? zomg you think different things than i do... you can't adopt!

[Grank]

The reality is that there are half a million kids in the system who haven't been adopted. I believe until we find enough two-parent homes willing to adopt these children, we should not limit qualified applicants from adopting.
seems to be an "end justify means" type of logic. so homosexuals can adopt kids as long as there are an abundant amount of fister kids... then when/if the amount of foster kids goes down we should stop allowing gays to adopt. is that correct?

[Howlin' Wolf]

no...they shouldnt

[TheBus36(Retired)]

no...they shouldnt

Thanks, it was starting to get boring in here:eek:

[Jesuslove]

seems to be an "end justify means" type of logic. so homosexuals can adopt kids as long as there are an abundant amount of fister kids... then when/if the amount of foster kids goes down we should stop allowing gays to adopt. is that correct?
I guess I was just responding to what someone else said. Someone else suggested that the ideal situation is a two parent-opposite sex household. I don't deny that, but there aren't enough of them available to adopt all the available children. There never will be.

I read an article recently that suggested that only 1 of 4 American households today is what we refer to as a 'traditional' household (mother, father, children). Alternative families or single parent households have become much more the norm. To me, the '1 in 4 families' seems a bit low.

Yes, I think gays and lesbians should be allowed to parent AS LONG AS they meet the same criteria established for heterosexuals by their state government. I was on the beach with my son on Sunday and we walked about a one-mile stretch of beach. We saw half-a-dozen or so gay and lesbian families. If you lined these children up next to children raised by heterosexuals, you'd never know the difference. Being a single parent, I am very tuned in to how people respond to non-traditional families. The number one lesson I have learned is this: Kids, much like puppies, respond to love. If you love and nurture children, they will likely prosper, whether it's a one parent household, a two parent heterosexual household or a two parent same-sex household.

[Mugirl04]

Leaving Scripture out of this, there are plenty of studies that make a clear case that kids are better off with both a mother and father in the house. Of course, you can't legally mandate this, or every single mom in the nation would be a criminal. But it's still a valid point in this argument about gay adoption.

Like you, I'm torn. I am quite sure that kids are better off not being raised by gays, but I am also sure that there are a lot of people allowed to raise kids that have no business doing so.
agreed no they shouldn't adopt

[Yippy]

no...they shouldnt


agreed no they shouldn't adopt
Any particular reason? Or should we guess?

[Howlin' Wolf]

its not natural. homosexuality was and is an abomination in every culture in the history of the world....except ancient greece.

[cheewiee]

its not natural. homosexuality was and is an abomination in every culture in the history of the world....except ancient greece.

And unfortionatly Modern Europe, and soon to be Modern America...

[Howlin' Wolf]

And unfortionatly Modern Europe, and soon to be Modern America...

true

while i dont believe the state should deny any (innocent) citizen rights, i doexpect the state to use discernment when adopting kids out. i have many gay friends. every one of them has some serious deep seeded issues in regards to love and trust. the percentage of faithful gay men is insanely low. its just a sub-cultural fact that gay men are not monogamous. so what kind of loving relationship is going to be modeled?? and while lesbians succeed greatly in monogamy, all one has to do is look at urban areas to see the effects that a lack of father figure has on the home.

and while hetero's have our problems, there is a difference in whats being modeled.

[Debbie]

Let's get past what we personally feel and let's take this discussion to and from the BIBLE from this point forward. Let's get to what is biblicly written/stated and then close this discussion.

Tell us what exactly the Bible states, not what you think it means but what does it state. I have faith in the word and the word comes from the Bible.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Let's get past what we personally feel and let's take this discussion to and from the BIBLE from this point forward. Let's get to what is biblicy written/stated and then close this discussion.

Tell us what exactly the Bible states, not what you think it means but what does it state. I have faith in the word and the word comes from the Bible.


how is this a biblical issue?

[Debbie]

how is this a biblical issue?

My point is prove biblicly whether the gay lifestyle is or is not sinful. If you uncover that it is, then perhaps legal adoption is also sinful. If you uncover that it is not, then what's the problem?

[Howlin' Wolf]

My point is prove biblicly whether the gay lifestyle is or is not sinful. If you uncover that it is, then perhaps legal adoption is also sinful. If you uncover that it is not, then what's the problem?

i can prove that adultery is sinful. that not paying attention to your wife is sinful. that missing your son's tee ball game because you voluntarily worked OT because your greedy is sinful. those actions dont disqualify one from adoption. so the sin issue is a moot point, especially since we dont live in a theocracy.

[Debbie]

i can prove that adultery is sinful. that not paying attention to your wife is sinful. that missing your son's tee ball game because you voluntarily worked OT because your greedy is sinful. those actions dont disqualify one from adoption. so the sin issue is a moot point, especially since we dont live in a theocracy.

Is the gift of children intended for man and women or husband and wife (full of the sins you list), or wife and wife or husband and husband?

[Howlin' Wolf]

Is the gift of children intended for man and women or husband and wife (full of the sins you list), or wife and wife or husband and husband?


ive already stated my opinion on the issue. but the "God says its wrong" argument holds no weight in politics.

[Debbie]

ive already stated my opinion on the issue. but the "God says its wrong" argument holds no weight in politics.

I agree with you Tulip on it being wrong. Even though the seperation of church and state is law, shouldn't it be law though. How can you live in a world with morals if biblical law is not applied?

[Howlin' Wolf]

I agree with you Tulip on it being wrong. Even though the seperation of church and state is law, shouldn't it be law though. How can you live in a world with morals if biblical law is not applied?

easy. i mind my own business and dont hold the unchurched to the standards that i abide by.

[cheewiee]

easy. i mind my own business and dont hold the unchurched to the standards that i abide by.

It's a tough decision...

On one hand, should we try to uphold righteousness in our land? Or is this nation, like Israel concerning Saul, doomed to the passions of her people?

I kinda see both sides...

[Howlin' Wolf]

It's a tough decision...

On one hand, should we try to uphold righteousness in our land? Or is this nation, like Israel concerning Saul, doomed to the passions of her people?

I kinda see both sides...

neither Christ nor Paul spoke about government reform or a voice for the church. therfore, i see no need to either.

[cheewiee]

neither Christ nor Paul spoke about government reform or a voice for the church. therfore, i see no need to either.

Both Christ and Paul lived in a world where that wasn't a possiblity. In this country we have the ability to self govern by the will of the people...

Because that is the form and function of our government, it is entirely reasonable to belive that we can, and should bring to the discussion our standards of Righteousness...

I think the real question, is how far do we go in that discussion... And what things are worth bringing up in that discussion... Abortion for me is one Key thing that the church should always voice its oppinion about... Homosexuality may be a different story... I just don't know...

[Debbie]

I guess it all boils down to death then. Is choosing the way of the land choosing death? Extreme I know..but speaking in terms of the wage of sin.

[Evanescence]

I agree with you Tulip on it being wrong. Even though the seperation of church and state is law, shouldn't it be law though. How can you live in a world with morals if biblical law is not applied?

The bible should have NO place in our Govt.....biblical morals as well.

We left the oppression and theocracy of England 200+ years ago and religion was a major part of it.

These laws on adoption, should be made by the states and/or decided by the people. Not politicians with agendas and fat wallets.

Whats happening right now, with the right wing and politics is appalling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cheewiee]

The bible should have NO place in our Govt.....biblical morals as well.

Why? I thought our Government was Of, For and By the people.. So if the people want to be ruled by Biblical Morals, why is that a bad thing?


We left the oppression and theocracy of England 200+ years ago and religion was a major part of it.

THEOCRACY?!?! What History book did you get that out of? England was a monarchy... you know rule by King... The only Nation to have a true Theocracy was Israel up until she demanded a King....

These laws on adoption, should be made by the states and/or decided by the people. Not politicians with agendas and fat wallets.

As an antifederalist, I certainly agree with you... I SERIOUSLY doubt the ALCU agree's with you, and will press the issue in court untill the court rules any laws created by the state Unconstitutional...

Whats happening right now, with the right wing and politics is appalling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

[woman4life]

I disagree that religious beliefs should play no part in politics at all. That would pretty much disenfranchise a lot of people in this country, and as long as we have elections, individual voters have as much to say about the morals and direction of this country as anyone. There is no litmus test as to who can support what... the only one we have to account for as to what we do (as it ultimately will be with all things) will be God.

I love people who are homosexual, but I can see it is in the main a destructive lifestyle. I disagree with the notion that it is purely a genetic situation. I think it's quite possible that the predisposition is genetic (like we all inherited a sinful condition from Adam.) One can end up with the old nature/nurture controversy fairly easily. People living in a homosexual lifestyle are pretty much focusing on nature and avoiding nurture (aka environment/experiences.) I know a few years back the propensity to be alcoholic was suspected to be genetic. We still don't really excuse drunkenness and alcoholic behavior because it's destructive in general. I think there is ample evidence that this is largely true with homosexuality as well.

As for the government I think it should be as tolerant as possible to all people. On the other hand I have no problem with preferring a Godly moral standard. I don't expect others to live up to the "law" as none of us can. On the other hand, I think there can be standards. I start with what God says in the Bible and I've pretty much found that if you really look and want to see the repercussions of sin, you can rather easily. If a child is attached to someone already who is in that lifestyle, it might do more harm than good to remove them. It might even be preferable to the state as parent. But when placing for adoption, there should be research done to make sure the home is as stable as possible. We get this wrong often enough, to be sure.
I pretty much agree about the statements that homosexuality is not the best environment to place a child in. I would not necessarily favor adoption by same sex couples, particularly men, for the reasons stated already here.

BTW, we are in a different situation than the apostles. We can vote on who we would like to see in office. Paul was not really to afraid to use the system to promote the gospel, btw, although social reform was not where he put the emphasis. But here if we don't vote for what we believe to be right we are not exercising a responsibility we have been given.

And the scripture in Romans very clearly singles out homosexuality as destructive. Just read the first chapter. The main focus of that passage is that those who will not accept God will be given over to such things as homosexuality and they will pay a penalty in their own body for their sin. It's a natural consequence. I think we see this happening. Of course, this is true with sexual sins in particular.

Anyway, I don't want to live in a theocracy, mainly because we as humans usually get that wrong. On the other hand, I see no problem with preferring Christian principles. I would be one who would prefer not to see homosexual couples adopting children.

--Melanie

[Howlin' Wolf]

Why? I thought our Government was Of, For and By the people.. So if the people want to be ruled by Biblical Morals, why is that a bad thing?


the problem with governing through use of christian principles is that scripture has set no guidelines for politics. whereas with Islam and Judaism, they have set laws to follow.

if america was governed by christian principles, does it end up like Liberty or Bob Jones? is there any room for grace?

now, here is the most important point. we all know sin is wrong. if i, as a politician, lobby for abortion to be outlawed, i do it from a scientific perspective. do i believe abortion is murder? yes. why? the bible tells me that a fetus is human. that wont hold up in government. so i go to a scientific argument. science and law(the scott peterson case) have deemed that fetuses are indeed human. i use to sciences to back up what God has shown me to be true.

another example. i wont tell a kid not to have pre-marital sex because its a sin. i'll tell him not to have pre-marital sex because of the risk and the emotional detachment and forked upview of love that occurs in promiscuity. God has shown us the truth. and his truth is backed up in science and sociology and psychology.

[Mugirl04]

Any particular reason? Or should we guess?
the Bible states that it is a sinful lifestyle. I won't let drug dealers adopt

[Debbie]

the Bible states that it is a sinful lifestyle. I won't let drug dealers adopt

The question was originally addressed to individuals that responded without explanation. I believe those questions have been addressed previously.

[Howlin' Wolf]

the Bible states that it is a sinful lifestyle. I won't let drug dealers adopt

should we imprison homosexuals like we do with drug dealers?

[cheewiee]

the problem with governing through use of christian principles is that scripture has set no guidelines for politics. whereas with Islam and Judaism, they have set laws to follow.

if america was governed by christian principles, does it end up like Liberty or Bob Jones? is there any room for grace?

now, here is the most important point. we all know sin is wrong. if i, as a politician, lobby for abortion to be outlawed, i do it from a scientific perspective. do i believe abortion is murder? yes. why? the bible tells me that a fetus is human. that wont hold up in government. so i go to a scientific argument. science and law(the scott peterson case) have deemed that fetuses are indeed human. i use to sciences to back up what God has shown me to be true.

another example. i wont tell a kid not to have pre-marital sex because its a sin. i'll tell him not to have pre-marital sex because of the risk and the emotional detachment and forked upview of love that occurs in promiscuity. God has shown us the truth. and his truth is backed up in science and sociology and psychology.

I get what you are saying, and I do agree that you cannot legislate on Christian Morals, because they are Christian Morals alone...

Especially in a world that disagrees with Christian Morals..

However I still think that we as believers can and should make a concerted effort to raise a banner of Righteousness within the discourse of public debate...

It's just a matter of wisely picking and choosing our battles, and be willing to provide practical solutions to societies problems other than simply... "We'll pray about that"...

[Debbie]

I
However I still think that we as believers can and should make a concerted effort to raise a banner of Righteousness within the discourse of public debate...

It's just a matter of wisely picking and choosing our battles, and be willing to provide practical solutions to societies problems other than simply... "We'll pray about that"...

Nice!

I am concerned with what might be labeled as Christian boundaries. When it comes to sin (the world), my kids - your kids, shouldn't we stand up and make a statement in the name of the LORD? Other groups do it in the name of equal rights. Are we not entitled to win based upon christian and biblical beliefs (facts) for all the people, not just the churched.

Tulip makes a great point in using science to do just this. My thoughts are that by doing this though, are we being creatively manipulative and are we denying the name of the LORD by this act? Should we not just stand up and fight for it?

[cheewiee]

Nice!

I am concerned with what might be labeled as Christian boundaries. When it comes to sin (the world), my kids - your kids, shouldn't we stand up and make a statement in the name of the LORD? Other groups do it in the name of equal rights. Are we not entitled to win based upon christian and biblical beliefs (facts) for all the people, not just the churched.

Tulip makes a great point in using science to do just this. My thoughts are that by doing this though, are we being creatively manipulative and are we denying the name of the LORD by this act? Should we not just stand up and fight for it?

I don't think Tulip is saying we leave out God... (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

He isn't saying that a Youth Pastor shouldn't preach to his Youth Group about the sinfulness of premarital sex... But if we are going to take that message into a world that denies the very existance of Sin... then we need to back that up with practicialities..

If we are going to discuss the application of Christian Morals in the public discourse, we need to bring more to the table than, "Well, because God said so", or "It's in the Bible". We need to explain why said behavior is bad, in a practical manner...

[Howlin' Wolf]

Tulip makes a great point in using science to do just this. My thoughts are that by doing this though, are we being creatively manipulative and are we denying the name of the LORD by this act? Should we not just stand up and fight for it?

its not being manipulative to seak out against abortion because by law,itsmurder. scott peterson is in prison for murdering a fetus, yet millions of women and doctors are protected by the law. it doesnt add up.

in addition, science has shown that a fetus is a human. so if you wanna change a non-believer's mind, you have to speak to him in terms that he understands. if i say, "down with abortion because its a sin! my bible says so!!" i have instantly polarized myself from the crowd i'm trying to convince.

the argument that i presented on why abortion should be illegal cannot be refuted. a non-believer will refute God, the Bible, and church and state.

[cheewiee]

its not being manipulative to seak out against abortion because by law,itsmurder. scott peterson is in prison for murdering a fetus, yet millions of women and doctors are protected by the law. it doesnt add up.

Up untill Lacies Law was upheld by SCOTUS a fetus was not deemed by law to be human... In order for something to be human it had to have been given birth to... (Does that make sense?)

Lacies Law is the most promising challenge to the legality of Abortion in this nation since before Roe V. Wade

[Howlin' Wolf]

I don't think Tulip is saying we leave out God... (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

He isn't saying that a Youth Pastor shouldn't preach to his Youth Group about the sinfulness of premarital sex... But if we are going to take that message into a world that denies the very existance of Sin... then we need to back that up with practicialities..

If we are going to discuss the application of Christian Morals in the public discourse, we need to bring more to the table than, "Well, because God said so", or "It's in the Bible". We need to explain why said behavior is bad, in a practical manner...
exactly!

and i'll take it an extra step and say that before the church tries to clean up the nation,she should clean up herself. how many in the youth group are having sex and abortions?

the church wants homosexual marriage to be outlawed to protect the sanctity of marriage, yet has a divorce rate equal to that of the non-churched. if we want hmosexual marriage outlawed, why stop there? why not outlaw divorce? is divorce not a bigger slap in the face to the sanctity of marriage?

[Howlin' Wolf]

Up untill Lacies Law was upheld by SCOTUS a fetus was not deemed by law to be human... In order for something to be human it had to have been given birth to... (Does that make sense?)

Lacies Law is the most promising challenge to the legality of Abortion in this nation since before Roe V. Wade


the fact that peterson is in jail for double murder should tell the law makers something

[Debbie]

its not being manipulative to seak out against abortion because by law,itsmurder. scott peterson is in prison for murdering a fetus, yet millions of women and doctors are protected by the law. it doesnt add up.

in addition, science has shown that a fetus is a human. so if you wanna change a non-believer's mind, you have to speak to him in terms that he understands. if i say, "down with abortion because its a sin! my bible says so!!" i have instantly polarized myself from the crowd i'm trying to convince.

the argument that i presented on why abortion should be illegal cannot be refuted. a non-believer will refute God, the Bible, and church and state.

Makes a ton of sense. Thank you for your explanation. U 2 Cheewiee.

I understand everything that you have said. When it comes to using these principals, I don't like be wishy-washy. Not saying that you are specifically, I have just observed many on the fence from the original discussion of this thread or perhaps some that love to watch others squirm over the topic. None the less....

What biblical science persay would you use legally concerning homosexuals, same sex marriage and adoption to create law not in favor, in favor of it?

[Howlin' Wolf]

Makes a ton of sense. Thank you for your explanation. U 2 Cheewiee.

I understand everything that you have said. When it comes to using these principals, I don't like be wishy-washy. Not saying that you are specifically, I have just observed many on the fence from the original discussion of this thread or perhaps some that love to watch others squirm over the topic. None the less....

What biblical science persay would you use legally concerning homosexuals, same sex marriage and adoption to create law not in favor, in favor of it?

i'd use romans 1
but i would use it in dealings with those inside the church

[cheewiee]

How very true. Sickening actually. Who should be cleaning this mess up, or let me say, making sure that it gets cleaned up? Who is going to stand up and take on this job so when we try to make a statement we are heard?

Lord knows every time I start talking about the Church dealing with it's sin on this board, I get rotten tomatoes tossed at me while the crowed jeers "Stop Judging"....

:rolleyes:

Perhaps this is why Paul says in the last days they wil have a form of righteousness... (Churchianity) but deny the power thereof (The ability to rise up out of sin)

[middletree]

i'd use romans 1

Excellent. I think that Christians who bring up Leviticus when trying to establish the sinfulness of homosexuality are misguided, and because that argument is a flawed one, the pro-gay crowd will pounce on it.

[middletree]

Lord knows every time I start talking about the Church dealing with it's sin on this board, I get rotten tomatoes tossed at me while the crowd jeers "Stop Judging"....

I'm with you on this. Drives me nuts. The bible never says not to judge.

[Yippy]

You all have brought up some great points...you've been busy since I left earlier.
I'm with you on this. Drives me nuts. The bible never says not to judge.
The problem is, we tend to judge before removing the plank - or is it log? - from our own eye...And some judge with reckless abandon, which is why, I imagine, the "crowd" gets skittish. It's a shame. But that's for another thread.

[kiwisongbird]

Doesnt' the Bible say something about if you judge you will be judged with the same measure? ....or judge not, lest ye also be judged??

Kevin and I have this discussion often - he says there is a difference between judging and being discerning, which I agree, but how do we find which is which???

We use the term 'planking' in our house often - stop planking we cry loudly when we see this act being comiitted!!!!!

I don't know if Gays should be allowed to adopt - I don't even know if I have the brain space to try to think what I think about it - oops, sorry blonde moment :)

[jrmitch]

Nice!

I am concerned with what might be labeled as Christian boundaries. When it comes to sin (the world), my kids - your kids, shouldn't we stand up and make a statement in the name of the LORD? Other groups do it in the name of equal rights. Are we not entitled to win based upon christian and biblical beliefs (facts) for all the people, not just the churched.

Tulip makes a great point in using science to do just this. My thoughts are that by doing this though, are we being creatively manipulative and are we denying the name of the LORD by this act? Should we not just stand up and fight for it?I'd have to disagree - rather strongly, actually - that we have any entitlement to demand the world accept our beliefs as Christians (especially when it comes to demanding that our moral structure dictate societal behavior). Guys, that was never modeled by Jesus (who said himself that he came not to judge the world) and never taught by the Apostles. The fallen world will always be just that: fallen. Scripturally, we're to reflect the character traits of Jesus while in the midst of that world, but that's a far cry from demanding the world view issues such as gay adoption through the lens of the Cross. They cannot, and will not, be able to do so. To expect and demand they do otherwise is much more indicative of the nature of the Pharisees than reflective of the character of Jesus.

Ouch......sorry for the harshness of that - please take it in love, because it was intended that way. ;)

[cheewiee]

I'd have to disagree - rather strongly, actually - that we have any entitlement to demand the world accept our beliefs as Christians (especially when it comes to demanding that our moral structure dictate societal behavior). Guys, that was never modeled by Jesus (who said himself that he came not to judge the world) and never taught by the Apostles.

Again, by virtue of our nature of Government, we have the right to voice our oppinions. As believers, that opinnion should be one of righteousness.

If you really belive that Jesus ment for us to avoid the affairs of this world, can I suggest you burn your voters registration card?

The fallen world will always be just that: fallen. Scripturally, we're to reflect the character traits of Jesus while in the midst of that world, but that's a far cry from demanding the world view issues such as gay adoption through the lens of the Cross. They cannot, and will not, be able to do so. To expect and demand they do otherwise is much more indicative of the nature of the Pharisees than reflective of the character of Jesus.

Ouch......sorry for the harshness of that - please take it in love, because it was intended that way. ;)
Your right, this world is fallen, and they reject morality. But again, I point out, the only other option is to burn our voter id's and completly withdraw from the scope of public debate...

[jrmitch]

Again, by virtue of our nature of Government, we have the right to voice our oppinions. As believers, that opinnion should be one of righteousness.

If you really belive that Jesus ment for us to avoid the affairs of this world, can I suggest you burn your voters registration card?


Your right, this world is fallen, and they reject morality. But again, I point out, the only other option is to burn our voter id's and completly withdraw from the scope of public debate...I never said we're to avoid the affairs of this world. In fact, I've often said here on the boards that we have a scriptural responsibility to interact with our culture. But I fail to see the scriptural argument for demanding that those who don't know Jesus accept our worldview as the cultural norm.

And if you go back and reread my post you'll see that I never said that we should not speak out for our beliefs. What I apparently failed to clearly say was that I see no scriptural model for demanding that our beliefs be accepted as the rule and law of society. If you've got a solid scriptural Biblical argument otherwise, then I'm all ears. :D

[cheewiee]

Look, if you can lay out a pattern of Jesus and the Apostles influencing their culture through politcal involvement and activism I'm all ears. But I fail to see that pattern anywhere in scripture.

And if you go back and reread my post you'll see that I never said that we should not speak out for our beliefs. What I said was that there's no scriptural model for demanding that our beliefs be accepted as the rule and law of society. If you've got a solid scriptural argument otherwise, then let's see it. :D

Jesus and the Apostles didn't live in a world where they had the right to influence their culture through political involvement and activisim. They were subjects of the state. In our culture, the state is the subject of the people...

As long as we stay within the rights provided to us by the government, that is all the model we need, provided we are willing to back up what we advocate with more than just a.. "The bible says so"....

I agree that this world does not, nor does she have any reason within their failed logic to follow Christian Morals. Sinners sin... To get aghast because people want to be homosexuals, is foolish. I am not advocating a Christian theocracy, but I am saying that we should not abandon discussing righteousness in the discourse of public debate...

How do we do that in a biblical sense? We do so in accordance with the law...

We speak out against abortion, we do not blow up clinics...

[jrmitch]

Cheewie, I hear what you're sayin', and please forgive my earlier tone if it was unduly harsh. No offense intended. :D

However, I'll also add that I think we sometimes confuse our cultural rights and freedoms with our scriptural mandate to model the character of Jesus in the face of opposition. I posted this link on an earlier thread regarding our 'rights' as believers; while it's a lengthy read I do so again just as something for us to chew on.....;)

http://sierratimes.com/03/11/12/ar_dorothy.htm

[jrmitch]

To steer this thing back on track......as has been previously pointed out there are thousands of foster kids waiting for adoptive homes. Here in Colorado we currently have over 700 adoption ready kids statewide with no homes available. (My wife and I are currently undergoing the necessary training to do respite/foster care and possibly adopt a child ourselves). So here's my question: what's the alternative to gay adoption? What resources have we as the church given our society?

Well, the link to a Colorado alternative is below, and I'd love to hear any others y'all are aware of. Guys, if we're going to say gay adoption is wrong the only way the world will take us seriously is if we also provide a reasonable alternative. What are some of the choices out there?

Here's that link:
http://project127.com/index.htm

[Debbie]

Guys, if we're going to say gay adoption is wrong the only way the world will take us seriously is if we also provide a reasonable alternative. What are some of the choices out there?

Here's that link:
http://project127.com/index.htm

Now you are talking. So we have cleared the way to use science as creative biblical resource, correct? How can we use these talents to find and create alternative choices?

[SacredHeart]

Here we have a lifestyle that is (arguably to some, but inarguable to me) sin and separates a person from God, which ultimately leads to eternal damnation. So somebody tell me why would I want to promote/support/endorse that in society, let alone a child's life? To me, this is just another link in the chain that further distances humanity from God. It's one more nail in the coffin, when we, as Christian's, should be doing everything we can to promote righteousness which leads to eternal life. Does this mean a gay person can't raise a child to become a caring, responsibile adult? You bet they can...but I wonder how much of hell will be filled with caring, responsible people who simply didn't know God.

[cheewiee]

Here we have a lifestyle that is (arguably to some, but inarguable to me) sin and separates a person from God, which ultimately leads to eternal damnation. So somebody tell me why would I want to promote/support/endorse that in society, let alone a child's life? To me, this is just another link in the chain that further distances humanity from God. It's one more nail in the coffin, when we, as Christian's, should be doing everything we can to promote righteousness which leads to eternal life. Does this mean a gay person can't raise a child to become a caring, responsibile adult? You bet they can...but I wonder how much of hell will be filled with caring, responsible people who simply didn't know God.

Well... No one says you should promote/support or endorse it in society...

I think what we are talking about, is, how far do we go in expecting our increasingly secular society to go along with our 'Christian Morals', because the bible says to, when they don't even recognize the bible as authority?

[Debbie]

Well... No one says you should promote/support or endorse it in society...

I think what we are talking about, is, how far do we go in expecting our increasingly secular society to go along with our 'Christian Morals', because the bible says to, when they don't even recognize the bible as authority?


Very good Cheewiee. I agree with you and Sacredheart...seeing into both aspects. I agree we should be making a statement against these...however, as jrmitch ask, what alternatives can we as christians offer against it and win.

[Grank]

Here we have a lifestyle that is (arguably to some, but inarguable to me) sin and separates a person from God, which ultimately leads to eternal damnation. So somebody tell me why would I want to promote/support/endorse that in society, let alone a child's life? To me, this is just another link in the chain that further distances humanity from God. It's one more nail in the coffin, when we, as Christian's, should be doing everything we can to promote righteousness which leads to eternal life. Does this mean a gay person can't raise a child to become a caring, responsibile adult? You bet they can...but I wonder how much of hell will be filled with caring, responsible people who simply didn't know God.
when God made us he gave us(well... some of us) the ability to reason and make moral descisions based on what we believed to be right. God and Jesus never forced anybody to do anything. If we say that gays can't adopt are we trying to force them to not be gay? is this some type of weapon with which people think they can threaten the gay community? we're to show them the light, not punish them for being in the darkness. the biggest issue i have with it, other than the hidden attepmt to force someone into "righteousness" is that it would be punishing a group of individuals for a legal action. it would make sense if being gay was illegal, but it's not.

[Yippy]

Well... No one says you should promote/support or endorse it in society...

I think what we are talking about, is, how far do we go in expecting our increasingly secular society to go along with our 'Christian Morals', because the bible says to, when they don't even recognize the bible as authority?

To add to this, homosexuality is not illegal here. So, why can one segment of our society adopt and another not?

[Grank]

Well... No one says you should promote/support or endorse it in society...

I think what we are talking about, is, how far do we go in expecting our increasingly secular society to go along with our 'Christian Morals', because the bible says to, when they don't even recognize the bible as authority?
when did we start expecting society to agree with the Bible? i don't recall ever expecting that, nor do i recall the Bible saying that society would.

better question... why wou you expect a society, full of unsaved people, to go along with christian morals? i know i don't

[cheewiee]

when did we start expecting society to agree with the Bible? i don't recall ever expecting that, nor do i recall the Bible saying that society would.

better question... why wou you expect a society, full of unsaved people, to go along with christian morals? i know i don't

There was a time when the United States was considered to be a Christian Nation...

However a course was plotted away from that in the early 1960s

[SacredHeart]

Well... No one says you should promote/support or endorse it in society...

I think what we are talking about, is, how far do we go in expecting our increasingly secular society to go along with our 'Christian Morals', because the bible says to, when they don't even recognize the bible as authority?
So how do we uphold a standard of righteousness in an unrighteous world? I think a small part of the answer (pertaining to this discussion) comes through legislation--supporting any and every bill that promotes righteousness, but I think where the real battle will be fought and won won't be through legislative means but through the church actually behaving the way it is intended to behave. It seems that so often we forget the most important roll we play is to first, spiritually fight the battle--on our knees fervently, passionately, agressively and continually interceding for this nation, and then getting up and DOING something! I'm reminded of James 1:27 that says,
"Pure and lasting religion in the sight of God our Father means that we must care for orphans and widows in their troubles, and refuse to let the world corrupt us."

I think the truth is, if we were doing what we're supposed to be doing, much of the problem would be solved.

[Grank]

There was a time when the United States was considered to be a Christian Nation...

However a course was plotted away from that in the early 1960s
um... i hope you mean the sins became less hidden in the early 60's

[Grank]

So how do we uphold a standard of righteousness in an unrighteous world? I think a small part of the answer (pertaining to this discussion) comes through legislation--supporting any and every bill that promotes righteousness, but I think where the real battle will be fought and won won't be through legislative means but through the church actually behaving the way it is intended to behave. It seems that so often we forget the most important roll we play is to first, spiritually fight the battle--on our knees fervently, passionately, agressively and continually interceding for this nation, and then getting up and DOING something! I'm reminded of James 1:27 that says,


I think the truth is, if we were doing what we're supposed to be doing, much of the problem would be solved.

pam, i don't think i've ever agreed with you more than i do about this right hurr(yeah, i'm from the streets, what?)

[Yippy]

Does this mean a gay person can't raise a child to become a caring, responsibile adult? You bet they can...but I wonder how much of hell will be filled with caring, responsible people who simply didn't know God.
Christians have raised caring responsible people who have gone to hell. People who have been raised in the worst possible conditions have become Christians...I can't imagine the State doing a better job providing for a child than a gay couple who provides a loving home.

I would rather that homosexuality wasn't so acceptable in our society, but coming to the table with the reason that homosexuals are sinners living a sinful lifestyle who shouldn't adopt won't carry any weight with non-believers. Non-believers are sinners, even the heterosexual ones.

EDIT:



I think the truth is, if we were doing what we're supposed to be doing, much of the problem would be solved.
The church is supposed to be responsible?:eek: The sad thing is, I think if the church was as responsible as she could be, there still would be an abundance of need out there. However, if the church was acting like the church should (and not just pockets of it here and there), we would have much more of an influence on society. IMO

[SacredHeart]

when God made us he gave us(well... some of us) the ability to reason and make moral descisions based on what we believed to be right. God and Jesus never forced anybody to do anything. If we say that gays can't adopt are we trying to force them to not be gay? is this some type of weapon with which people think they can threaten the gay community? we're to show them the light, not punish them for being in the darkness. the biggest issue i have with it, other than the hidden attepmt to force someone into "righteousness" is that it would be punishing a group of individuals for a legal action. it would make sense if being gay was illegal, but it's not.
I don't believe we should "punish" them, but I sure as heck don't have to support it, morally, socially, and if it came to this, legislatively. Does that mean I would shun a child raised by a gay parent/parents? Absolutely not, nor would I shun the parents...nor would I even state my beliefs to them. I would (hopefully) treat them with utter kindness, showing them the love of God, as I would with any person who does not know Christ.

[Yippy]

I don't believe we should "punish" them, but I sure as heck don't have to support it, morally, socially, and if it came to this, legislatively.
I agree.

(You all are typing way too fast for me this AM):)

[SacredHeart]

Christians have raised caring responsible people who have gone to hell. People who have been raised in the worst possible conditions have become Christians...I can't imagine the State doing a better job providing for a child than a gay couple who provides a loving home.

I would rather that homosexuality wasn't so acceptable in our society, but coming to the table with the reason that homosexuals are sinners living a sinful lifestyle who shouldn't adopt won't carry any weight with non-believers. Non-believers are sinners, even the heterosexual ones.

EDIT:


The church is supposed to be responsible?:eek: The sad thing is, I think if the church was as responsible as she could be, there still would be an abundance of need out there. However, if the church was acting like the church should (and not just pockets of it here and there), we would have much more of an influence on society. IMO
You are absolutely right, Yippy, because every person has to make that choice for themselves no matter who raises them. I guess all I'm saying is that when a child is raised to believe evil is good, and good is evil, there is a greater chance that they will never come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The same can be said for any sin...homosexuality just happens to be the topic of this discussion.

[SacredHeart]

pam, i don't think i've ever agreed with you more than i do about this right hurr(yeah, i'm from the streets, what?)
Of course you do...that's why I let you be my friend. :p

[cheewiee]

um... i hope you mean the sins became less hidden in the early 60's

No, I mean in the 1960's saw the beginning of a concerted effort to tranform what was considered a Christian Nation into a Secular one...

think about this... the first public school system developed in this country was developed for the sole purpose of teaching kids to read, so that they could read their bible...

think about this... one of the first acts of congress, was to appropriate funds to print bibles...

think about this... A church existed in the capitol building before congress moved in...

I am not going to mourn the move from being a Christian nation, to being a secular one... but I will not buy into the revisionistic crap others want to stuff down my throat...

[jrmitch]

Not to hijack the thread again - honest. But since I've gotta run to work and won't be able to add anything else to this discussion until later today I thought I'd post this just to *ahem* stir the pot a little......:D

Okay, I'm making some assumptions here. Let's assume that our argument against gay adoption includes a conventional two parent home (mother and father). Let's also assume that our line of reasoning includes the argument that we need to model that stability in the home - both politically and spiritually - as a viable alternative to gay adoption.

Now, let's further assume that we all agree that our credibility is based much more upon our conduct rather than our beliefs (since we know the world rejects our Christian worldview). And finally, let's assume that we view our elected officials - who we put in office - as emblematic of representing our values and beliefs. Got it?

Now, consider the following...........

Y'know what everyone on the following list has in common? I'll give you a second to chew on it while y'all peruse the list:

Ronald Reagan...Bob Dole...Newt Gingrich...House Majority leader Dick Armey...Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas....Gov. John Engler of Michigan...Former Gov. Pete Wilson of California...George Will...Sen. Lauch Faircloth....Rush Limbaugh...Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia....Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York...Sen. John Warner of Virginia....Gov. George Allen of Virginia....Henry Kissinger....Helen Chenoweth of Idaho.....Sen. John McCain of Arizona....Rep. John Kasich of Ohio....Rep. Susan Molinari of New York....

In case you haven't already guessed it, all of these folks have been divorced; some numerous times. (Rush Limbaugh and his wife have 4 divorces between them, and Bob Barr was on his 3rd marriage by the age of 50 - which didn't stop him from sponsoring the "in defense of marriage act", prompting Capitol Hill insiders to ask "uh Bob...which marriage are you defending....??") And this is just the short list; there are many more.

Now, holster your weapons, boys and girls - I'm not trying to slander or poke fun at anyone on the list; I highly respect several of them. But when we as a church say that we believe homosexuality is ruining the institutions of marriage and the family, and then we claim to view those listed as representative of our values, the world often just looks at us and shakes their head. And when you also consider that the divorce rate among professing Christians is as high as it is in the world outside of the church, the world just laughs at us when we talk about the importance of marriage and the family. Which it should, because we often deserve to be laughed at.

[SacredHeart]

The church is supposed to be responsible?:eek: The sad thing is, I think if the church was as responsible as she could be, there still would be an abundance of need out there. However, if the church was acting like the church should (and not just pockets of it here and there), we would have much more of an influence on society. IMO
Possibly...it's something we'll never know. But just imagine, IF the church had not abdicated her role...IF she had not rolled over and stuck her head in the sand...IF, when the concerted effort Cheewie just spoke of was occurring, the church actually did something effective. The point is, the church is anemic and has been for a long time. We live far beneath our potential and calling. It's all semantics, to say "What if" but I can't help but be reminded that it's not too late...it's never too late for the church to rally and begin taking her rightful place in this world.

[cheewiee]

But when we as a church say that we believe homosexuality is ruining the institutions of marriage and the family, and then we claim to view those listed as representative of our values, the world often just looks at us and shakes their head. And when you also consider that the divorce rate among professing Christians is as high as it is in the world outside of the church, the world just laughs at us when we talk about the importance of marriage and the family. Which it should, because we often deserve to be laughed at.

Get ready to get hit by an onslaught of rotten tommatoes, and the jeers of "Judge Not"....

This is absoulutly the truth... How can the church expect the world to listen to her about marrage, when her marrage is just as broke as the worlds?

[Debbie]

it would make sense if being gay was illegal, but it's not.

Being gay may not be illegal in the land, however, some of their acts are. I will not go there in this conversation. In the bible, being gay is sinful, the act is sinful, are we ignoring biblical law with a, well ok attitude? From my reference book, biblical law, it is illegal.

This does not mean, that I do not love each and every person equally. I want the same for all, eternal life. Pam makes great points here:

I don't believe we should "punish" them, but I sure as heck don't have to support it, morally, socially, and if it came to this, legislatively. Does that mean I would shun a child raised by a gay parent/parents? Absolutely not, nor would I shun the parents...nor would I even state my beliefs to them. I would (hopefully) treat them with utter kindness, showing them the love of God, as I would with any person who does not know Christ.

Here is my issue, the law of the land continues to out weigh the biblical law in this discussion. I agree that chances of the unrighteous hearing us is slim. I do agree with points Tulip made earlier...there is a way and a tool to do it from a indirect biblical aspect to apply the law.

From a christian standpoint, what can I do and be heard?

[Debbie]

just imagine, IF the church had not abdicated her role...IF she had not rolled over and stuck her head in the sand...IF, when the concerted effort Cheewie just spoke of was occurring, the church actually did something effective. The point is, the church is anemic and has been for a long time. We live far beneath our potential and calling. It's all semantics, to say "What if" but I can't help but be reminded that it's not too late...it's never too late for the church to rally and begin taking her rightful place in this world.

Thank YOU! Thank YOU!

[cheewiee]

Possibly...it's something we'll never know. But just imagine, IF the church had not abdicated her role...IF she had not rolled over and stuck her head in the sand...IF, when the concerted effort Cheewie just spoke of was occurring, the church actually did something effective. The point is, the church is anemic and has been for a long time. We live far beneath our potential and calling. It's all semantics, to say "What if" but I can't help but be reminded that it's not too late...it's never too late for the church to rally and begin taking her rightful place in this world.

The solution to the church regaining her place in this world, is through the life changing power of the Gospel, and concerted prayer... not a collective effort to enact laws...

[SacredHeart]

Being gay may not be illegal in the land, however, some of their acts are. I will not go there in this conversation. In the bible, being gay is sinful, the act is sinful, are we ignoring biblical law with a, well ok attitude? From my reference book, biblical law, it is illegal.

This does not mean, that I do not love each and every person equally. I want the same for all, eternal life. Pam makes great points here:



Here is my issue, the law of the land continues to out weigh the biblical law in this discussion. I agree that chances of the unrighteous hearing us is slim. I do agree with points Tulip made earlier...there is a way and a tool to do it from a indirect biblical aspect to apply the law.

From a christian standpoint, what can I do and be heard?I agree...we're getting far too caught up in what is legal or socially acceptable, which causes conflict in what we should do with biblical truth. I think you made the point earlier on that we can't forget that we really are talking heaven and hell issues here. We can accept and love homosexuals (and I do!) but, like every sinner who doesn't know they need a savior, they are going to hell and THAT should be our primary concern. We mustn't get off-track here...our goal is to reach the lost, be it children who need parents, homosexuals who think they're doing what they were born to do, or the sweet housewife who loves her family but simply doesn't know she needs Christ. Reaching the lost is always the answer...reach the lost...reach the lost...by any means possible, reach the lost.

[SacredHeart]

The solution to the church regaining her place in this world, is through the life changing power of the Gospel, and concerted prayer... not a collective effort to enact laws...
AMEN!!!

[Debbie]

The solution to the church regaining her place in this world, is through the life changing power of the Gospel, and concerted prayer... not a collective effort to enact laws...


I do agree to some point. When laws are in congress; ie; gay marriage, gay adoption; legal drinking age etc........we can pray up a storm, I would like to hope that this would stop it. But it does not always, in all states etc. Should we not show our face? Shouldn't we come out of the closet?

I am not saying let's enact laws. Most current law works for me. It is changing those laws into social acceptance of what has been denied for more than 2000 years I have a problem with. This is where we need to make a stand, in prayer and in voice.

[cheewiee]

I do agree to some point. When laws are in congress; ie; gay marriage, gay adoption; legal drinking age etc........we can pray up a storm, I would like to hope that this would stop it. But it does not always, in all states etc. Should we not show our face? Shouldn't we come out of the closet?

I am not saying let's enact laws. Most current law works for me. It is changing those laws into social acceptance of what has been denied for more than 2000 years I have a problem with. This is where we need to make a stand, in prayer and in voice.

There needs to be a ballance...

I havn't ever suggested that we hide our faces... I have argued that we need to raise a banner of righteousness... We need to be light, and salt to this dying world... That is Gospel.. right?

What I am saying is that we can't expect the world to see our banner of righteousness and stop sinning... Nor should we expect legislation to change hearts...

Lets for a moment pretend that we could go and make Homosexuality illegal.. well said laws would be laws based on promoting righteousness, right?

But what happens to the homosexual.. He may not commit the sin of homosexuality, but he is still dead to sin... Does that make sense?

Stopping homosexual adoptions isn't going to solve the homosexual's problems, or the child's problems... both with out christ are still going to Hell...

the real solution is for Christians to adopt children in the foster system, and to show the homosexuals that they can be free through Christ...

[SacredHeart]

I agree Cheewiee; that is the real solution. We will never convince the world that homosexuality is wrong or any of the sins our society so readily embraces, either thru words or legislation. That is a task that only the Holy Spirit can accomplish. Our responsibility is to bring the gospel to the lost and as they receive Christ, the Holy Spirit begins changing them. It is the "renewing of the mind" that Paul speaks of in Romans 12:2

[Howlin' Wolf]

I do agree to some point. When laws are in congress; ie; gay marriage, gay adoption; legal drinking age etc........we can pray up a storm, I would like to hope that this would stop it. But it does not always, in all states etc. Should we not show our face? Shouldn't we come out of the closet?

I am not saying let's enact laws. Most current law works for me. It is changing those laws into social acceptance of what has been denied for more than 2000 years I have a problem with. This is where we need to make a stand, in prayer and in voice.


you sound like a theonomist.

[Gandalf]

Theonomist in which sense? As distinguished from Autonomy? In that case, Theonomy is correct - moral and ethical standards are derived from God, not from Self. In the dominion theology sense? I don't think anyone here thinks that the Church should rule in a governmental sense over states, or that the details of the Old Testament Law should be applied today. We saw some of that in the middle ages; it was a bad deal... But that doesn't mean that there's not an element of truth in the basic premise that the Truth is derived from God and is absolute, and we should make our laws line up with it as much as possible. It's better to have just and moral laws than not to. We can aim for that without subscribing to dominion theology and other flawed conclusions that people derive from that premise.

[Debbie]

you sound like a theonomist.

Now that I know what that means, maybe in part, yes without directly choosing to be.

[ObiShawn]

I do agree to some point. When laws are in congress; ie; gay marriage, gay adoption; legal drinking age etc........we can pray up a storm, I would like to hope that this would stop it. But it does not always, in all states etc. Should we not show our face? Shouldn't we come out of the closet?Pun intended?

[Debbie]

Pun intended?


No! LOL

[Yippy]

Possibly...it's something we'll never know. But just imagine, IF the church had not abdicated her role...IF she had not rolled over and stuck her head in the sand...IF, when the concerted effort Cheewie just spoke of was occurring, the church actually did something effective. The point is, the church is anemic and has been for a long time. We live far beneath our potential and calling. It's all semantics, to say "What if" but I can't help but be reminded that it's not too late...it's never too late for the church to rally and begin taking her rightful place in this world.
I really don't think we have a "rightful" place in this world. I do believe, though, that unless the church as a whole follows the command to love one another (and let love be without hypocrisy), none of our opinions are really going to matter and we're going to continue being considered the noisy religious right (or worse). We will be persecuted for the wrong reasons, like we've seen. We have a tremendous responsibility in handling God's Word and presenting it to the world, and we are to be the salt and light. I think because we do not walk in love, we have lost our flavor and brightness. When we speak of truth, we do not speak in love out of humility and seemed to have lost our awe of God's grace and mercy...and sadly to say, God Himself. When we as a church return to our first Love and walk in humility, we'll see a great move of God in people's hearts. You see that when pockets of God's people humble themselves and pray. There is great power in humility. We have forsaken humility and replaced it with agendas, programs, feel good seminars, political causes and downright arrogance. Uhhh...:o I think I've said enough.

[Grank]

wait... are we arguing from a legal or moral stand point? i prolly should have clarified that earlier, because like i've said before moral =\= legal. i don't think the gov't should cater to any religion or group of people. morally though i can believe whatever i want to believe... i'm free to do that. personally, i find homosexuality to be wrong. not only is it in the Bible, it doens't seem ethical even to secular standards... more self destructive than anything really. this doens't mean that i want to impose my beliefs on anybody else. majority rules... of course, but the minority still has their rights. i consider equal treatment a right.

[Gandalf]

Can they really be separated though? Morality is absolute, and laws must be based on it in order to be just. The idea that morality is a personal matter and that it shouldn't be "imposed" on others is a postmodern fallacy. That's not to say that we should create a theocracy, but if something is clearly immoral, the government should not support it. If something is clearly a moral virtue, the government should encourage it. The specifics may be vague in some cases, but in general I think those principles hold.

[Grank]

Can they really be separated though? Morality is absolute, and laws must be based on it in order to be just. The idea that morality is a personal matter and that it shouldn't be "imposed" on others is a postmodern fallacy. That's not to say that we should create a theocracy, but if something is clearly immoral, the government should not support it. If something is clearly a moral virtue, the government should encourage it. The specifics may be vague in some cases, but in general I think those principles hold.
silly goose... i find premarital sex immoral. i find taking two cookies before others have one is immoral. i find not helping somebody who's broken down on the side of the road immoral. does that mean i should try to make these things illegal? pfft, "postmodern fallacy"... hahaha...

i vote for a 5 year imprisonment for anyone who doesn't lend their buddy a cup of sugar when he's out.

[middletree]

silly goose... i find premarital sex immoral.

That's been my point the whole time (although I haven't posted in this thread since page 1). Scripturally, homosexual sex is no better or worse than fornication. It's Christians who have decided that one is more immoral than the other.

Havings said that, i still think we could justify not allowing gay couples to adopt on the grounds that a child needs both a mother and father. But that would preclude single people from adopting, too, and I know at least one person on these boards who'd have a problem with that.

[Gandalf]

silly goose... i find premarital sex immoral. i find taking two cookies before others have one is immoral. i find not helping somebody who's broken down on the side of the road immoral. does that mean i should try to make these things illegal? pfft, "postmodern fallacy"... hahaha...

i vote for a 5 year imprisonment for anyone who doesn't lend their buddy a cup of sugar when he's out.
Premarital sex is immoral... it would be entirely reasonable for a society to have laws against adultery, divorce, etc. As for the rest... I don't advocate laws against refraining from doing something right, but that doesn't mean the government should encourage people to do what's wrong. There shouldn't be laws against helping your neighbor or incentives (tax breaks, etc.) to refrain from doing so.

[jrmitch]

That's been my point the whole time (although I haven't posted in this thread since page 1). Scripturally, homosexual sex is no better or worse than fornication. It's Christians who have decided that one is more immoral than the other.....Thank you - well said. ;)

[Debbie]

It's Christians who have decided that one is more immoral than the other.....

I don't totally agree with this statement:

1st - The discussion in this thread pertains to homosexuality, gays adopting children. I think everyone is clear on most other acts that would be considered sin...

The point here is that gays are trying to change the law of marriage, not that we the church are trying to change a law that already exist. Because someone wants to change a law does not make it right if it is not morally (biblicaly) ok. How do we as a church stand before counsel and make our case? If same sex marriage is immoral, how can same sex adoption be right?

Also, based upon scripture...has homosexual behaviour been deemed worse than all of these? Again, does Sodom & Gommorah have any weight here? As stated in OT Gen 19, NT Jude 7 etc.... God did not wipe out a city of theives or murderers, but an entire city where homosexual behavior existed, even so He loved everyone there in the city. Does Aids have any weight compared to the city? I don't know, but think the sanctity of marriage between man and women means more to GOD than most think here. At least that is my take on it.

[Grank]

hmmm... i didn't know we were talk'n about gay marraige. i thought we were talking about legally penalizing somebody because they were gay.

[middletree]

I don't totally agree with this statement:

1st - The discussion in this thread pertains to homosexuality, gays adopting children. I think everyone is clear on most other acts that would be considered sin...

The point here is that gays are trying to change the law of marriage, not that we the church are trying to change a law that already exist. Because someone wants to change a law does not make it right if it is not morally (biblicaly) ok.


You make good points here.



Also, based upon scripture...has homosexual behaviour been deemed worse than all of these? Again, does Sodom & Gommorah have any weight here?

That's a different debate, of course. I have come to believe, based upon Scripture, that all sexual sin is abhorrent to God. Equally. 1 Corinthians 6 being but one example which puts homosexuals, fornicators, drunks, etc, into the same category. It is my contention that many, maybe most, modern American Christians look at that list, and can sympathize with drunks and fornicators because of things they did in their late teens and early 20's. But they can't relate to homosexuals because they didn't experiment with it, and therefore aren't as understanding.

In general, it's always best to not let our experiences guide us as to what's true.

[Debbie]

That's a different debate, of course. I have come to believe, based upon Scripture, that all sexual sin is abhorrent to God. Equally. 1 Corinthians 6 being but one example which puts homosexuals, fornicators, drunks, etc, into the same category.

It has been stated in this thread over and over again the equalness of these sins. I agree that Cor 6, list them all the same. However, if you continue those studies, you will find probably more than or up to 20 different scripture that reflect homosexual behavior alone.

It is my contention that many, maybe most, modern American Christians look at that list, and can sympathize with drunks and fornicators because of things they did in their late teens and early 20's. But they can't relate to homosexuals because they didn't experiment with it, and therefore aren't as understanding.

I think this allows us to only help others better to turn away from their mistakes/sins. With homosexuality, all most of us have is scripture which is a better tool compared to experience as with all of the above. I believe their is a tolerance or lack thereof. I also feel that folks have fears for their own children and their children.

[middletree]

It has been stated in this thread over and over again the equalness of these sins. I agree that Cor 6, list them all the same. However, if you continue those studies, you will find probably more than or up to 20 different scripture that reflect homosexual behavior alone.


And I find several scriptures about straight sexual sins, such as the commandment about adultery, and Jesus' admonition not to lust.

I think this allows us to only help others better to turn away from their mistakes/sins. With homosexuality, all most of us have is scripture which is a better tool compared to experience as with all of the above. I believe their is a tolerance or lack thereof. I also feel that folks have fears for their own children and their children.

I see this differently than you, I guess. At any rate, Christians are dropping the ball when it comes to using Scripture to help homosexuals.

Every credible study has shown that most homosexuals become that way as a result of something bad in their childhood. Usually, it's a distant dad, or a weak dad combined with a domineering mother. This tells me that gays are a group of very hurting people. They should be on the receiving end of some compassion, some prayer for healing. But if you watch most Christian TV, or listen to Christian talk radio, they never speak of healing or hurting. It's all very negative toward gays, as if they were the enemy. It's as if Ephesians 6:12 doesn't exist.

Gays pick up on this, and are very convinced that they want nothing to do with Christians or Christianity. I truly fear that the Church has dropped the ball in a huge way with this group. I really do.

[jrmitch]

It has been stated in this thread over and over again the equalness of these sins. I agree that Cor 6, list them all the same. However, if you continue those studies, you will find probably more than or up to 20 different scripture that reflect homosexual behavior alone.

Deb, I respectfully think you're a little off base, and allow me to (slightly) derail the thread by giving you the courtesy of explaining why.

First, we know that God condemns homosexual behavior as an abomination in the Old Testament. However, He did so in the context of the law given to the corporate nation of Israel. Under that same set of laws, things such as abortion, theft, sorcery, and marital infidelity all carried the same penalty as homosexual behavior did, which was death. But......

That entire set of laws governed the relationship between God and Israel - not God and the Gentiles, or God and any other tribes of any other nation. Though there are some provisions of the law that were also taught by Jesus (i.e. the 10 commandments), they were still a set of laws designed to equip the Israelites with behavior that would make rotten sinners acceptable to a righteous God. And if we're going to check homosexuals at the behavioral door because of what God said under that system of laws, then in fairness we also must do the same to all of the other behavioral issues (and their consequences) that the entire Old Testament law called for. Which means that those whose sexual and behavioral sins required death under the old covenant should still be executed for those offenses under the New Covenant. And we'll need to reinstitute the sacrificial system, and help God reestablish the priesthood to carry out those sacrifices. Which reminds me: we can't eat pork and shrimp anymore either, because it's unclean. And if you eat clean meat off of a grill that has prepared unclean meat, or enter the door of any establishment that has ever served unclean meat, or just happen to be out for a walk and see a dead cow (whether or not you've been exposed in any manner to clean or unclean meat) then you're just as unclean as if you had eaten the unclean meat in the first place.........:D

Now, that may sound slightly silly, but the only alternative to the above is to pick and choose what provisions of the law we think still apply and which don't - something that God never gave the Israelites the option of doing, yet many in the church today seem to feel is their birthright. We've arguably done this more with those who are gay than any other group of people. And here's where I think you've wandered down the wrong trail.

When examined in light of the New Testament homosexuality is never singled out apart from other works of the flesh. It is sin - period. Not a sin that Paul (or anyone else) in the New Testament identifies as any more abominable than any others; not a sin that God has reserved a special kind of contempt for, and not a sin that we as Christians are ever taught to single out from others. It is simply listed as one of the indentifiying traits of the works of the flesh, and much of the church has taken an understandable disgust with the behavior and made it into something more than what the New Testament teaches.

Should a gay person or gay couple be allowed to adopt? Bibilcally, no - but the Bible never has been (or ever will be) the law of the land; in fact, we are clearly told that all laws are to be obeyed, and to honor those who God has placed in the position of authority to make those laws. So if our civil law does not identify one who is gay as breaking the law - and in about half of the states it doesn't - and if the exisiting law in any of those states where homosexuality is not illegal allows a provision for them to adopt, then I have no scriptural basis to deny them that right because of my faith. I may not like it (which I don't).....I may find it morally repugnant (which I personally do).....and I may or may not encourage my elected representatives to change those laws (which I do). But Paul is extremely clear that all governing authority is established by God, and only by Him. So if our system of government allows it, then I have no basis to deny it, no matter how wrong I believe it is.

[Debbie]

Deb, I respectfully think you're a little off base, and allow me to (slightly) derail the thread by giving you the courtesy of explaining why.

Thank you. But I believe the same for you...you may be missing some very important points. I think though your explanation brings me to review Timothy. There is something about civil law or the law of the land for the unrighteous. I will go take a look and be back in a bit with more.

[Mugirl04]

should we imprison homosexuals like we do with drug dealers?
no, but it is a sinful lifestyle like being a drugie is

[Grank]

no, but it is a sinful lifestyle like being a drugie is
you are correct, but the gov't doesn't punish those who haved sinned against God. the gov't punishes those who sin against the gov't. homosexuality isn't a sin against the gov't. if it isn't a sin against the gov't it shouldn't be treated any differently by the gov't. however, were it to ever become illegal then that would completely change.

[jrmitch]

you are correct, but the gov't doesn't punish those who haved sinned against God. the gov't punishes those who sin against the gov't. homosexuality isn't a sin against the gov't. if it isn't a sin against the gov't it shouldn't be treated any differently by the gov't. however, were it to ever become illegal then that would completely change.It's not illegal on the Federal level (there's no Federal sodomy law), but currently Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, Nevada and Texas have existing laws against homosexual sodomy, while 20 other states have laws that include both gay and heterosexual sodomy.

[middletree]

It's not illegal on the Federal level (there's no Federal sodomy law), but currently Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, Nevada and Texas have existing laws against homosexual sodomy, while 20 other states have laws that include both gay and heterosexual sodomy.
If you would have made this statement in 2003, you'd be accurate. But in 2004, the Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law, and by extension, all other state laws outlawing homosexual behavior. While many states have it on the books still, they are forbidden to enforce it.

[jrmitch]

If you would have made this statement in 2003, you'd be accurate. But in 2004, the Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law, and by extension, all other state laws outlawing homosexual behavior. While many states have it on the books still, they are forbidden to enforce it.I'd forgot; thanks for the clarification. ;)

[jrmitch]

Thank you. But I believe the same for you...you may be missing some very important points. I think though your explanation brings me to review Timothy. There is something about civil law or the law of the land for the unrighteous. I will go take a look and be back in a bit with more.You piqued my curiosity with this as well, and all I could find in Timothy was in 1st Timothy 1:3-11. However, every scholar and commentary I've seen states that in that passage Paul is referring to the Mosaic law and false teaching, where in Romans 13 and Titus 3 he's specifically referring to civil authorities and laws. The NIV also has a text note in Romans 13 pointing out that all of the rulers at the time were probably pagans, and that Paul is writing these comments because Christians may have been tempted to not submit to them because of their allegiance to Christ. :)

[Debbie]

You piqued my curiosity with this as well, and all I could find in Timothy was in 1st Timothy 1:3-11. However, every scholar and commentary I've seen states that in that passage Paul is referring to the Mosaic law and false teaching, where in Romans 13 and Titus 3 he's specifically referring to civil authorities and laws. The NIV also has a text note in Romans 13 pointing out that all of the rulers at the time were probably pagans, and that Paul is writing these comments because Christians may have been tempted to not submit to them because of their allegiance to Christ. :)

Now you know why I did not respond quickly initially or now. This is going to take some study on my part to support your findings. I have not had a chance to do this, but will.

[jrmitch]

Now you know why I did not respond quickly initially or now. This is going to take some study on my part to support your findings. I have not had a chance to do this, but will.I want to throw an additional twist into this that I failed to mention in my earlier comments.......

I'm probably gonna step on some toes with this, but I ask you to follow me carefully. When Paul talks in Romans and Titus about obeying civil leadership, I see him talking about all leadership on all levels of government. That would include Federaly elected and appointed leadership and the laws written by the founding fathers of our country as contained within the U.S. Constitution. There is no existing Federal law against sodomy, the Constitution doesn't criminalize homosexuality, and all state laws which did criminalize it have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. So according to the 14th amendment gay folk have the same legal rights and protection as those who are straight.

Now, let me clarify that I'm not talking about the recent efforts made to legalize gay marriage, or any efforts made to give those in the gay community special protected status - I'm only refering to the existing constitutional freedom they (and all of us, gay or straight) have as citizens of the United States. And since those who are gay receive equal protection and rights under that law, then I honestly believe I am scripturally obligated to honor that law (whether I like it or not). So.....if the law of a given state gives those who are gay the legal right to adopt, the issue of whether it's morally right or wrong is a secondary issue as to whether it's a legal right they're entitled to as U.S. citizens. If our founding fathers gave them that protection, and Paul said that we're to honor and obey the lawmakers who give them that protection.....then I just can't find a scriptural basis for denying them that right. Now, if I'm off-base here someone please let me know. Thoughts....?!?

[ObiShawn]

I agree with you jrmitch.

[Grank]

I agree with you jrmitch.
as do i

[middletree]

So according to the 14th amendment gay folk have the same legal rights and protection as those who are straight.
.... And since those who are gay receive equal protection and rights under that law, then I honestly believe I am scripturally obligated to honor that law (whether I like it or not). So.....if the law of a given state gives those who are gay the legal right to adopt, the issue of whether it's morally right or wrong is a secondary issue as to whether it's a legal right they're entitled to as U.S. citizens.

This would be true if it were simply about gays having the right to adopt. But adopting, like driving is a privilege, not a right. But even more important, adoption is more about what's best for the kid than what the adopter is entitled to. And I believe it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by a mother and a father.

[mat1583]

And I believe it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by a mother and a father.

What about the millions of single parent homes?

-washboard

[jrmitch]

This would be true if it were simply about gays having the right to adopt. But adopting, like driving is a privilege, not a right. But even more important, adoption is more about what's best for the kid than what the adopter is entitled to. And I believe it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by a mother and a father.I absolutely agree, and where this gets murky is that adoption laws vary from state to state. In some states (Colorado being one) gays are given more freedom to pursue adoption than they are in others. My point was simply that I feel scripturally bound to honor the law in a state such as Colorado, where they have been given an equal right to adopt a child. That doesn't mean that I endorse that law, or feel as though it's morally right. (And it also means that I continue to encourage my elected representatives to push for more stringent adoption standards and will fight against upcoming proposed legislation making Gay marriage legal in Colorado). But as I read scripture I'm supposed to honor those existing laws, whether I agree with them or not.

[middletree]

What about the millions of single parent homes?

-washboard
Pray for them.

[Debbie]

What about the millions of single parent homes?

-washboard

I am asking myself if a single parent home is not a better option than the home of homosexuals :confused: :confused: Even though not the perfect choice, my thoughts are leading toward "yes", it is a better choice. I strongly support a child having both a mother and father..However, if we are trying to place hundreds and possibly thousands of children in homes, are there any other choices we could make to place these children?

1st choice: Both parents, Mother and Father
2nd choice: ??

[jrmitch]

I am asking myself if a single parent home is not a better option than the home of homosexuals :confused: :confused: Even though not the perfect choice, my thoughts are leading toward "yes", it is a better choice. I strongly support a child having both a mother and father..However, if we are trying to place hundreds and possibly thousands of children in homes, are there any other choices we could make to place these children?

1st choice: Both parents, Mother and Father
2nd choice: ??While I agree that a single parent home is a better choice than a gay couple, there's another question that bugs me.....is a gay couple who will provide stability and love better than bouncing from foster home to foster home? On the surface I want to say no.....but when I think of some of the gay folks that I know who are really warm hearted, caring people, and then I think of the fact that we have over 800 kids in the State of Colorado that are waiting to be adopted.....man, I just don't know. And while we know what the Bible says regarding Gods ideal plan for the family, I haven't been able to see where it addresses this issue.......:(

[Jesuslove]

Not to hijack the thread again - honest. But since I've gotta run to work and won't be able to add anything else to this discussion until later today I thought I'd post this just to *ahem* stir the pot a little......:D

Okay, I'm making some assumptions here. Let's assume that our argument against gay adoption includes a conventional two parent home (mother and father). Let's also assume that our line of reasoning includes the argument that we need to model that stability in the home - both politically and spiritually - as a viable alternative to gay adoption.

Now, let's further assume that we all agree that our credibility is based much more upon our conduct rather than our beliefs (since we know the world rejects our Christian worldview). And finally, let's assume that we view our elected officials - who we put in office - as emblematic of representing our values and beliefs. Got it?

Now, consider the following...........

Y'know what everyone on the following list has in common? I'll give you a second to chew on it while y'all peruse the list:

Ronald Reagan...Bob Dole...Newt Gingrich...House Majority leader Dick Armey...Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas....Gov. John Engler of Michigan...Former Gov. Pete Wilson of California...George Will...Sen. Lauch Faircloth....Rush Limbaugh...Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia....Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York...Sen. John Warner of Virginia....Gov. George Allen of Virginia....Henry Kissinger....Helen Chenoweth of Idaho.....Sen. John McCain of Arizona....Rep. John Kasich of Ohio....Rep. Susan Molinari of New York....

In case you haven't already guessed it, all of these folks have been divorced; some numerous times. (Rush Limbaugh and his wife have 4 divorces between them, and Bob Barr was on his 3rd marriage by the age of 50 - which didn't stop him from sponsoring the "in defense of marriage act", prompting Capitol Hill insiders to ask "uh Bob...which marriage are you defending....??") And this is just the short list; there are many more.

Now, holster your weapons, boys and girls - I'm not trying to slander or poke fun at anyone on the list; I highly respect several of them. But when we as a church say that we believe homosexuality is ruining the institutions of marriage and the family, and then we claim to view those listed as representative of our values, the world often just looks at us and shakes their head. And when you also consider that the divorce rate among professing Christians is as high as it is in the world outside of the church, the world just laughs at us when we talk about the importance of marriage and the family. Which it should, because we often deserve to be laughed at.
I agree with your philosophy.

[prayercloth sis]

NO! God intended for a man and woman to raise children ...as I well know that there are single parent families and foster care I cannot see placing a child in a home that is sinful...for "Gayness" is an abomination unto God.

It goes against his creation of man and woman....

Sorry but this is something that I strongly believe.

We can love folks that have sin in their lives but we do not have to condone the sinful nature that they portray.

Respectfully

Rhonie

[Debbie]

NO! God intended for a man and woman to raise children ...as I well know that there are single parent families and foster care I cannot see placing a child in a home that is sinful...for "Gayness" is an abomination unto God.

It goes against his creation of man and woman....

Sorry but this is something that I strongly believe.

We can love folks that have sin in their lives but we do not have to condone the sinful nature that they portray.

Respectfully

Rhonie

Hi Rhonie,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you completely. However....there are thousands of kids in the system and in childrens homes in the US and other countries. Here, there is no mother and father unless the child is fostered. Again, who knows what stability the child is or is not getting from this temporary setting.

Since there are obviously not enough mother and father homes willing or able to accept these children for various reasons...what are the other choices outside of homosexual household? I agree that this would definitely be the wrong choice. But how do we place these children if there are not enough mother and father homes for them?

I believe this is where the discussion is at. The consensus here agrees with you. Aside from that, there is a problem with the worlds children even being able to live in home. What would God have us to do for them so that they are loved and nurtured as children should be?

Leave them in the system? I just cannot imagine that....

Blessings,
Debbie

[Jesuslove]

There are currently Legislative proposals in 15 states aim to ban adoptions and/or foster care by gay and lesbian families. On any given day, there are over 500,000 children in America’s foster care system and almost 120,000 of those wait for permanent adoptive homes. There is a perennial shortage of foster and adoptive homes. In states where there are more children than homes, kids are housed in residential treatment facilities, group homes, and hospitals. Yet, some lawmakers, and voters, would rather see thousands more children in these non-permanent, non-family like environments than have them raised by loving foster and adoptive families.

I believe opposing gay adoption, or adoption by single parents, is unethical for three reasons: 1) Children are not tools to be used by politicians to gain votes; they are human beings with complex needs that cannot be met in institutional environments; 2) Every major medical, child welfare and psychological association supports gay parenting. There is no evidence that children raised by gay parents are less emotionally healthy than their peers raised by heterosexual parents; and 3) I believe no politician, religious leader, policy group or voter has the right to malign or judge any family who actively supports America’s children unless they have fostered or adopted themselves, and have actively participated in recruiting 500,000 parents to care for each and every child in American’s foster system. There should be no discussion about “better” parents when so many children have no parents at all. It personally offends me when those who want to ban gay adoption or single parent adoption for that matter, stand on the backs of America’s neediest children while they pontificate about family values.

[middletree]

There is no evidence that children raised by gay parents are less emotionally healthy than their peers raised by heterosexual parents;

Completely untrue. Most studies show that a kid is better off with a father and mother in the home. This is hard to come by when both parents are the same sex.

[Jesuslove]

There is no evidence that children raised by gay parents are less emotionally healthy than their peers raised by heterosexual parents;

Completely untrue. Most studies show that a kid is better off with a father and mother in the home. This is hard to come by when both parents are the same sex.
I disagree with you. I have seen studies that show the opposite and I know gay families personally. Do you know any gay families?

Today, less than 1 in 3 families is the traditional mother-father-child(ren) household. Furthermore, I think one quality parent is better than two mediocre parents. I myself, am a single dad. My son goes to school with other parents who chose to adopt as singles. I assure you, these children are given more opportunity than most children.

[prayercloth sis]

WE have friends that have fostered many, many children. I personally would much rather see them in foster care than in a homosexual homelife.

just my thoughts...what to do about it...pray and those that can...adopt!!!!

Blue Mountain Children's Home is an excellent facility and all the children that come out of this care facility goes to college and becomes a blessing to society.

Wish they could all be like Blue Mountain's Children Home or like the Pulley's who take in any child and give them their best.

We hope to do this one day when we are fiancially able...as my husband was adopted.

God Bless

Rhonie

[middletree]

I disagree with you. I have seen studies that show the opposite and I know gay families personally. Do you know any gay families?

I know a few gay men. I also know Christian counselors, and I know how to read.

[Evanescence]

This is quite a paradox. I started the thread and really don't know where I stand on it....

A kid could pick up negative/confusing signals from two gay men/women who are raising them. Gays tend to be very proud and flaunt their lifestyle to a point a kid may decided to dabble or experiment. I think this is where Bi-sexuality can come into play. This is not good.

But, can we just close doors on kids just because of OUR beliefs? The govt IS responsible for making sure kids are placed in good homes and if Christians get too invloved with politics, we have a theocracy and/or a religion in politics. This shouldnt be either.

The whole foster/adoption process needs to be gone through and cleaned up. We need to make it less expensive and easier for parents to adopt....yet keep kids safe.

There are some kids that are better off being raised by wolves than the parents that they have. So, if a gay couple c an do better, its hard to say no.

What about single parents? Someone said about a man and woman raising kids....not two men. That this is the way God intended. Truly this is wisdom as 85% of criminals come from broken homes. No offense women, but it's difficult to do it right without a man....and a man without a woman. It takes two...and even then it isn't foolproof.

Then we have to decide how to prove who is gay and who isn't. Who is only gay sometimes and who isn't. How would you police it?

It's a tough all for me. I think all people should be treated fairly. There is no evidence that Gays are any worse parents than some people we may even know. I know of a few parents who are supposed "good Christians" and their kids should be taken away from them.

Where do you draw the line?

[Valpo]

This is quite a paradox. I started the thread and really don't know where I stand on it....

A kid could pick up negative/confusing signals from two gay men/women who are raising them. Gays tend to be very proud and flaunt their lifestyle to a point a kid may decided to dabble or experiment. I think this is where Bi-sexuality can come into play. This is not good.

But, can we just close doors on kids just because of OUR beliefs? The govt IS responsible for making sure kids are placed in good homes and if Christians get too invloved with politics, we have a theocracy and/or a religion in politics. This shouldnt be either.

The whole foster/adoption process needs to be gone through and cleaned up. We need to make it less expensive and easier for parents to adopt....yet keep kids safe.

There are some kids that are better off being raised by wolves than the parents that they have. So, if a gay couple c an do better, its hard to say no.

What about single parents? Someone said about a man and woman raising kids....not two men. That this is the way God intended. Truly this is wisdom as 85% of criminals come from broken homes. No offense women, but it's difficult to do it right without a man....and a man without a woman. It takes two...and even then it isn't foolproof.

Then we have to decide how to prove who is gay and who isn't. Who is only gay sometimes and who isn't. How would you police it?

It's a tough all for me. I think all people should be treated fairly. There is no evidence that Gays are any worse parents than some people we may even know. I know of a few parents who are supposed "good Christians" and their kids should be taken away from them.

Where do you draw the line?


yeah E, I don't think it's so much the notion of whether or not they'd be good parents, but going back to original intent of family/marriage what have you...I have a cousin who's mother (my former aunt) is in a lesbian relationship, and aside from that shes a real nice woman, and appears to be a good mom, but like you talked about regarding the mixed messages a child may receive is tricky, personally based on original intent Id say no, but it is hard bc you are right plenty of straight couples out there dont have half a clue as how to parent

[Jesuslove]

yeah E, I don't think it's so much the notion of whether or not they'd be good parents, but going back to original intent of family/marriage what have you...I have a cousin who's mother (my former aunt) is in a lesbian relationship, and aside from that shes a real nice woman, and appears to be a good mom, but like you talked about regarding the mixed messages a child may receive is tricky, personally based on original intent Id say no, but it is hard bc you are right plenty of straight couples out there dont have half a clue as how to parent
I think good parenting has more to do with love and commitment to parent, than it does with sexuality. To me, in all threads that discuss this type of topic, the bottom line is there are good people and bad people. Let each individual or couple be judged by the system as worthy or unworthy.

While I was trying to adopt, the head of my adoption agency told me that from his experience, he found it easier to work with gay couples moreso than straight couples. For gay couples adoption IS the option. For straight couples, adoption is often the last option for creating a family. He also said that he found gay people in general to be better parents. His belief was centered around the fact that most gay people choose to create families; they can't naturally create children. Sometimes heterosexuals have children out of wedlock or have unwanted children and for heterosexuals having a child isn't always a choice. I thought of this as I rode the train to work today. I saw a mother slap her son right across the face because he was crying. I thought to myself, "that woman shouldn't be a parent".

[Debbie]

as I rode the train to work today. I saw a mother slap her son right across the face because he was crying. I thought to myself, "that woman shouldn't be a parent".

I see this all too often as well. But more so I see loving nurturing families.

For gay couples adoption IS the option. For straight couples, adoption is often the last option for creating a family. He also said that he found gay people in general to be better parents. His belief was centered around the fact that most gay people choose to create families; they can't naturally create children. Sometimes heterosexuals have children out of wedlock or have unwanted children and for heterosexuals having a child isn't always a choice.

Think what concerns me JL is when the time comes how will you raise your son when it comes to his own partner relationship? If he were gay, would that not bother you? In your household, what chance does he have to be straight?

Sorry for all the questions, they are concerns. I hope you don't mind....

[Grank]

I believe no politician, religious leader, policy group or voter has the right to malign or judge any family who actively supports America’s children unless they have fostered or adopted themselves, and have actively participated in recruiting 500,000 parents to care for each and every child in American’s foster system.

by far the most unconstitutional thing you have ever said in any of your posts. sheer craziness... to say that you should have to do something in a field for your opinion to matter... wow... this is just as bad as people who complain about non-military people complaining about the military. i'm not gonna lie though, the hypocracy makes me chuckle on the inside... it makes me say "tee hee"




clearly the solution is forced parenthood, unless a court deems you unfit for parenthood. in such a case, you should then be incarcerated.

[jrmitch]

....While I was trying to adopt, the head of my adoption agency told me that from his experience, he found it easier to work with gay couples moreso than straight couples. For gay couples adoption IS the option. For straight couples, adoption is often the last option for creating a family....Man, I couldn't agree more. In our case God has (for now, anyway) closed the door to having natural children, so our only remaining option is adoption. But while we are currently undergoing State/agency training to do respite & foster care and want to adopt soon, we also know that we're struggling with doubt in our mind as to whether we'd view an adopted child as a replacement for the child we weren't able to have. And guys, that's a much more complex issue to sort through than it sounds.

I want to touch on something that Rhonie said regarding foster families. We also have friends who do foster care, and provide a wonderful environment for their kids. But that's far from the norm; there are documented cases here in Colorado of families doing foster care primarily just to get the subsidies that foster families receive, and then ignoring much of their foster childs needs. In talking with other foster parents and county caseworkers, the situation here is a real crap shoot in the sense that you're just as likely to see a foster child placed in a substandard home as you are an excellent one. Which cycles me back to our unanswered question.....

Do we know homosexuality is sinful behavior? Absolutely....do we know that Gods plan is to have both a mother and father figure in a childs life? Again, absolutely.....and most of us seem to be in agreement that a single parent (of either gender) is preferable to a gay couple. But what about the option of adoption by a gay couple vs. remaining within a foster care system that can't guarantee continuity in providing a stable environment? And scripturally speaking, how much influence should the church even have when that possible adoption is through a government agency? That's where I keep gettin' a headache....

[Jesuslove]

Think what concerns me JL is when the time comes how will you raise your son when it comes to his own partner relationship? If he were gay, would that not bother you? In your household, what chance does he have to be straight?

Sorry for all the questions, they are concerns. I hope you don't mind....
I'm not quite sure what you are asking in the beginning.. can you rephrase the first sentence and I'll be happy to respond.

Would it bother me if my son were gay? First and foremost I want my son to be happy, and be a Christian. I don't pretend to believe I can make a child gay or straight, I'm not God. All but a few homosexuals I know were raised by heterosexuals and many in two-parent homes. Based on my son's behavior at the early age of three, I suspect he is heterosexual. Although he doesn't have a "mom" in the traditional sense (as I am raising him alone), I have close women friends who are a part of his life and he is very close to his teacher. In addition, my Mom is active in my son's life. If you were to meet my son, you would see he is well adjusted and lacks nothing in his life. He has a good life and has experienced more than most 10 year olds. He's already been to 3 countries, 8 states, speaks in 2 languages and reads. My "dream" for my son is that he becomes a doctor and goes back to his homeland and cares for his countrymen in some capacity.

I don't mind any questions anyone asks. Ask away....

[Jesuslove]

by far the most unconstitutional thing you have ever said in any of your posts. sheer craziness... to say that you should have to do something in a field for your opinion to matter... wow... this is just as bad as people who complain about non-military people complaining about the military. i'm not gonna lie though, the hypocracy makes me chuckle on the inside... it makes me say "tee hee"

clearly the solution is forced parenthood, unless a court deems you unfit for parenthood. in such a case, you should then be incarcerated.
We can agree to disagree. I am part of the solution, not the problem.

[Youthwker]

Hmmm ahhh ............. uh ........... ah ..



NO

[middletree]

Try not to do that.
Try not to twist my meaning.

[lilmikey]

You know we sometimes we look down on gays when(sexual orientation aside) we are not much better than they are. Christians love to catagorize sin(this is worse than that) but sin is sin. God can save the liar just as much as he can the murderer. Sometimes we think we are better than them because we are not gay. When we are just as much sinners as they are.


I am in no way condoning homeosexuality and all that I think the Lord hates it and that it is an abomination but he loves the person not the sin.


Sorry for off topic but no I dont think it is good for gays to adopt.

[bdfwinn]

no

[ausgirl]

NO! God intended for a man and woman to raise children ...as I well know that there are single parent families and foster care I cannot see placing a child in a home that is sinful...for "Gayness" is an abomination unto God.

It goes against his creation of man and woman....

Sorry but this is something that I strongly believe.

We can love folks that have sin in their lives but we do not have to condone the sinful nature that they portray.

Respectfully

Rhonie
Totally agree on this one with you Rhonie.
Sorry folks, but if you claim to be a follower of christ then you believe and obey his word, totally, not just the bits that make you comfortable and not the bits that don't. If God says homosexuality is sin, then sin it is - to make it a law that a couple of this type could adopt would be against Gods law and though we have to abide by the laws of the land, God's law comes first.
Of course God loves all of his creation in our sinful states, his grace means that he will forgive us if we ask. He loves the sinner, he DOES NOT love the sins that they commit.
We could also debate that defacto relationships should not be allowed to adopt because that is a sinful relationship too - anyone thought about this??
Love to all
ausgirl

[jrmitch]

Sorry folks, but if you claim to be a follower of christ then you believe and obey his word, totally, not just the bits that make you comfortable and not the bits that don't. If God says homosexuality is sin, then sin it is - to make it a law that a couple of this type could adopt would be against Gods law and though we have to abide by the laws of the land, God's law comes first....ausgirlYeah, but you've missed the whole point: homosexuality is not illegal and Gods law does not govern our society (and it never will, until Jesus returns). When Paul tells us that all civil authority is ordained by God, he means all of those in positions of making and enforcing our laws; not just those who apply Bibilical morality to their efforts. And right now that law - which Paul says we are to honor and obey - allows those who are gay to adopt.

Sure, homosexuality is sin - but so are all of the other works of the sinful nature. And God's "law" calls for the same penalty for the breaking of that law - death. Which is where grace comes into play for both the believer and the unbeliever. Don't lose sight of that. ;)

[Howlin' Wolf]

Yeah, but you've missed the whole point: homosexuality is not illegal and Gods law does not govern our society (and it never will, until Jesus returns). When Paul tells us that all civil authority is ordained by God, he means all of those in positions of making and enforcing our laws; not just those who apply Bibilical morality to their efforts. And right now that law - which Paul says we are to honor and obey - allows those who are gay to adopt.

Sure, homosexuality is sin - but so are all of the other works of the sinful nature. And God's "law" calls for the same penalty for the breaking of that law - death. Which is where grace comes into play for both the believer and the unbeliever. Don't lose sight of that. ;)
excellent post

[Col. Mustard]

i think that it the child would be better off at least to have a home. i know my grandparents wanted to adopt a brother for my mom, but couldn't because they're prodisant, even if they promised to bring the boy up cathlolic, they wouldn't let them adopt. how messed up is that?
i don't think that homosexuals should be treated any differently. how can you base who you love on where there organs are placed?