Gay couples 'to get equal rights' in the UK

Jon, I think your anit-homosexual bias is keeping you from hearing what Kelly is saying.

To make it as simple as possible, adoptive parents should be loving, supportive, and available to their children. Ideally, they should have some education on child development and the adjustments adopted children have to make.

Their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Their marital status is relevant in as much as its very hard for a single parent to have the available time to nurture a child. If they have that time or other resources, then their marital status is irrelevant as well.

Joshua

 

stubbornkelly writes,

"The argument that a child needs models of both sexes is weak, at best, but even if we stipulate that they do need such influences, role models can and are often found outside the home when they cannot be provided inside the home. We say that about homeschooled kids all the time - they get their socialization through things other than a school environment, and that seems to hold water."

A child doesn't need a Mother and a Father?

How dare God create families with both.

He should have been more politically correct.

Love your comparing a family environment to homeschooling. Very convincing. What an apt comparison.

Can't we be more serious then this?

 

joshua, if you read my posts you will realise i take the same kind of stance with heterosexuals. that does not take away from the fact that when dealing with an area that relates in both directions kelly and yourself can only see yourselfs answering in one direction. i rest my case

yours, jon.

 

Joshua writes,

"Their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Their marital status is relevant in as much as its very hard for a single parent to have the available time to nurture a child. If they have that time or other resources, then their marital status is irrelevant as well."

How do you know this? Were you raised in an adoptive home with gay parents?

[ December 11, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Will ]

 

No but they want kids to have the advantages they didn't have.
Murph

 

What kind of Baptist church are you a member of Rev. Joshua? Does anyone know that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Rick

 

I'm not seeing at all how this legislation would have anything to do with unmarried heterosexuals and adopting children, and I didn't travel on to that topic, because the subject of this thread was the legal joining of same-sex couples, not the legal status of unmarried, but committed, heterosexuals . . .

Okay, then lets go to unmarried heterosexuals. Well, they do supply the male/female role models you spoke of. The issue, then, seems to be their perceived lack of stability. But it is just perceived. I'm sure that for many unmarried (or unjoined) couples, there is a bit of instability; however, for those who have all the elements of a married (joined) couple, but for the paper legally joining them, there certainly is stability.

Do children need a mother and a father to grow up well? I'm saying they do not. That has nothing to do with the way God put people together. Surely we all know of well-adjusted and mature adults who grew up without both mother and father, for whatever anecdotal evidence is worth.

I actually think the homeschooling analogy is a pretty good one. We counter arguments that our kids will not get socialization by being homeschooled by saying that they get that elsewhere by being around other kids at church, on teams, at lessons, ad infinitum. And yet we say that a same-sex couple can't provide an opposite sex role model for their kids as an argument (yes, I realize only one argument) against their raising children. If we apply the same logic to the homeschooling criticism, then the argument about needing to provide the role model of another sex is just as faulty as saying homeschooled kids don't get peer socialization. If it's needed at all (the sex role modelling, that is), it can be found outside the home, just as homeschooled kids related to their peers outside the home.

I've asked for exampled of children's righte being violated by having gay parents, and no one has offered any. So before you rest your case, jon, perhaps you ought to present it.

And Murph, I think you know your comment about gay people indoctrinating children was inappropriate and just plain wrong as a generalization.

 

You know, statistics show that gay "parents" are more likely to raise gay kids. If that doesn't show that kids are very susceptible to sinful behavior exhibited by theri "parents", then I don't know what is. BTW, the same can be said of unmarried and divorced couples. The children are more likey to follow in these footsteps. Let me point out, when I say gay kids, that doesn't mean they will identify themselves as part of the gay lifestyle, but they are much more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships. That is just sick. And, I'm grounded in my opinion enough to say, anyone who disagrees that homosexuality is wrong is a fool and has no business proclaiming to be a Baptist, or any other type of God-fearing, God-honoring Christian. If you have anything to say to contradict what I have said statistically above, I don't need to hear about it. I can look at branches of my own family that were raised in each of these situations and turned out to be the same way with their kids. We need legislation like this in order to stop the spread of sin at it's base. Bro. James

[ December 12, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James Reed ]

 

I think the case has been presented multiple times .You are just refusing to see. The Bible.
God's ways. Sometimes when we are so indoctrinated by the world, we are hardened to the ways of the Lord.

God said that homosexuality is wrong. This is the only proof we need. We don't have to prove it's wrong if God's book says it's wrong. He gives the ideal for children by giving the ideal in parents, man and woman. Children are to obey them, for a long life. He also calls this good and when God declares something to be good, then that is what it is.

 

Thanks for recognizing my statement, I do stand by it and think it is very appropriate. What do you honestly feel gay parents (shameful to even say those two words together)will tell their children about their choice of sexuality. Will they stand on god's word and say "son as two gay men living together we are an abomination according to God's word and we Pray that you will not consider our lifestyle" I doubt it don't you? As I said before if God is O.K. with homos then why can't they reproduce?

You asked a question about a childs rights being violated, let me say what about the right any child should have to be exposed to a Bible believing Church and to hear the Bible taught in Sunday School and in Worship. And before anyone speaks up about the many misguided gay congregations let me point out that I said Bible believing. I fail to understand how a christian can even question this issue but I am narrow minded.
Murph

 

But he also made Cain and Abel with no other women in sight nor for many years. It is most likely they were homosexual until a sister was born and matured. Therefore, God made the first couple heterosexual and the next couple homosexual, thus setting up the pattern that has stayed with us until today.

So God indeed made a "Adam and Steve" we call them "Cain and Abel."

 

Post it..... astrange arguement, but an arguement from SILENCE "with a capital s" We could make a lot of claims from silence, but the positive declarations of God are far from silent

yours, Jon.

 

For a third time, can I refer to my post on the 10th dec. which for some reason has been ignored.

Does God agree that arguements purely based on the bible have no place in secular society? There are instances, for example, where God is strongly influencing pagan Kings.

yours, Jon.

 

It is still an abomination in the eyes of God, and doesn't make any difference what some of the liberals, on this board, want to promote or think about this type of abomination!

God's Word is final!

Merry Christmas to all!

 

It is still an abomination in the eyes of God, and doesn't make any difference what some of the liberals, on this board, want to promote or think about this type of abomination!

God's Word is final!

Merry Christmas to all!

 

Abomination or no, that's not what this thread is about. It's about a legal issue, not a moral one.

 

Post it....you are a sick pup!

Ok lets talk. I am a product of Lutheran Children Family Services. So as a Child who was a orphan I do know what I am talking about.

An adopted child or even a foster child has so many emotions that they are dealing with, just being the foster, or adopted child. It is a trauma just being that. This is a deep wound that is hard for any child to deal with. Whether they were too young to remember, or not. This child has a hard enough time dealing with these emotions of feeling not good enough for the original parents, and a lack of love there of, that normal seems so far away or even untouchable. Causing much rebellion deep within the child.

Normal by nature is not male-male relationship or female-female relationship.

Homosexuality has been proven to be a sickness and not a desease. It is not something you are born with. It is a sickness that is added later. It is an outward, as well as inward rebellion.

This should not be mixed with raising a child...let alone an adopted child or foster child. The only thing that can come from it is more rebellion....more trauma....more mixed emotions. It is wrong to assume that there are no replications for this action, and assume it is perfectly alright. It is very unhealthy and can only lead to other problems. this has lead to alot of other unstable moments and trauma's for the child later in life.

To say Cain and Able were homosexuals is sick. There is no scripture to back this up and I find it very appalling Post-it that you say that.

Sherrie

[ December 13, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Legal issues are moral issues, are they not? Isn't the law by definition, legislated morality?

 

Amen Sherrie.

yours, Jon