Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So lying about homosexuals and homosexuality is somehow NOT a sin?Only if the lies are embracing sin.
I am somewhat against adoption by those lacking the ability to know the difference between "there" and "their" however.
Proved published peer reviewed evidence that sexual oriention is voluntary IE a choicerace is involuntary,
Proved published peer reviewed evidence that sexual oriention is changeable...specifically that one can change from homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0)immutable,
Proved published peer reviewed evidence that homosexuality is causationaly harmful.and innocuousnone of which is true of homosexuality.
I am against adoption by homosexuals. It is wrong to force kids into houses where kids are taught not only that sin is ok but where it is glorified.
I guess we should have a perfection test before placing children in homes. Didn't Christ say something about perfection and throwing stones?
And while we are at it, I guess we need to pass laws to prohibit Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists from adopting. In fact, sounds like you need to create a test to make sure only Christians who believe as you do can adopt.
race is involuntary, immutable, and innocuousnone of which is true of homosexuality.
I am against adoption by homosexuals. It is wrong to force kids into houses where kids are taught not only that sin is ok but where it is glorified.
I am against adoption by homosexuals. It is wrong to force kids into houses where kids are taught not only that sin is ok but where it is glorified.
Lot's of folks in favor of adoption by gays people.
The argument presented numerous times that a child is better off in a loving home rather than remaining as a ward of the state is flawed since it presents gay adoption as the only means of escaping state custody. It is not.
My argument is based on not intentionally forcing a child into a house where sin is accepted, practiced regularly, or celebrated. That includes abusive homes, neglectful homes, atheistic homes, adulterous home, alcoholic homes, etc. Every home is going to have negatives. Every home is going to have sin. No home is perfect. Rather than placing children into the least worse situations currently available, and saying we did the best we could even though it's not ideal, we need to work towards the ideal as hard as we can - children living in loving homes that do not embrace sin, regularly practice sin, or celebrate sin.
it's not ideal.So, placing orphans is anyhthing other than a christian home would be wrong, amirite?
it's not ideal.
In YOUR opinion. Thankfully, that's all it is.
Isn't that what each of us is posting, opinions?
lol
My point is simply this: Ideally (if you want to use that term), a child should have a home with parents. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Not all families are the same, and certainly non are perfect. Maybe that, in and of itself, is ideal.
Warning: Anecdotal Evidence Ahead!!!It's certainly a more likely fate if they have to go through foster care.
Anyway, as to gays adopting? I don't know, honestly. On one hand, all research suggests that gays are perfectly capable parents, certainly better than foster care. On the other hand, you do have the ethical issue of children having to put up with teasing from classmates for having gay parents.
Yes, kids always tease, but kids with gay parents will certainly receive more serious teasing, since many of the kids will have redneck parents who will have given them the idea that making fun of them is the right thing to do (i.e., "Daddy told me that your parents are going to Hell!"). Teasing kids with gay parents is going to be much more venomous than teasing kids because they wear glasses.
This issue is nothing new; it happened in the civil rights movement when integration first started. We forced the black children of America to go to the frontlines of the battle for equal rights when we put them into formerly all-white schools, and they had to endure the harassment and the insults.
It's honestly a really morally ambiguous issue, and I can't say that I know for sure what the answer to it is. In the end, though, I'd say that enduring the teasing is a lot better than having to go through foster care, and in the long run, it will provide children with parents that are respected by society in the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?