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.
My last sentence was that "they were most likely to adopt". Its kinda self evident. How is that taking it to far? annd how is that discrimination?
I could agree with you if we were trying to prevent christians from having their views and saying what they wish but we're not. You're still allowed to have your views.Dear naotmaa, The homosexual agenda pushes sexual orientation over Christian or even other religious views when some who have same-sex attraction, ie homosexuals also hold the view that same-sex sex is error.
But the sexual desires are still there. So if a woman was not able to have kids, should she not have sex with her husband? In any case I still know that my arguments are not based on sexual desires. Two people who are just fooling around (giving in to their sexual desires) are obviously not going to want to have kids. However, two people that love each other and want to spend their lives together, may want to raise children together as well.because it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child so the sexual desires of the man and woman is irrelevant.
They can still adopt, which I think is a very honorable thing to do in my opinion.Its true a gay man and a lesbian woman wont want to have sex with each other, in which case there wont naturally be any children between them.
Because I believe in Jesus Christ as the way the truth and the life.
You don't have any proof though. Your being discriminetory in fact. Unless you have some sights to back that up.
No, I don't actually. I mean self evident. I've already explained to you why they are most likely to adopt. If someone is married, wants to have kids, can't have kids, they are more likely to adopt than someone who can. Can you explain to me what your issue is with that statment?by self evident you mean assumption?
I don't think it's possible for me to find statistics on my statment. Unless you want me to find statistics on how many children have been adopted by gay/lesbians parents? I can do that, but it will have nothing to do with my statment.Facts, statistics
"Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them?" This argument is bizarre. If a state imposed this rule, there would be very few adoptions. Most of the couples that adopt do so because they cannot conceive. If you restricted adoption only to couples that can conceive, you'd relegate large numbers of children to foster homes for their entire childhood. That would be tragic for those children.Dear Ohioprof,
They are Christian so they will not want to disobey the state law and have already started closing down.
Yes it is, the agencies referred gay couples to other agencies, they didn’t place them because it isn’t God’s purposes, the state now demands these agencies use gay couples. So the state is forcing ‘gay adoption’ over ‘Christian adoption’ whereas before it allowed both to operate.
Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them.
No not all , see the NARTH site.
I think so, didn’t I point out to you some of the weaknesses of the studies from the first one I looked at. Did you have a look at the NARTH site?
NARTH is not recognized as a reputable professional organization by the leading psychological or medical organizations. They do not provide evidence from peer-reviewed studies.Dear Ohioprof,
They are Christian so they will not want to disobey the state law and have already started closing down.
Yes it is, the agencies referred gay couples to other agencies, they didn’t place them because it isn’t God’s purposes, the state now demands these agencies use gay couples. So the state is forcing ‘gay adoption’ over ‘Christian adoption’ whereas before it allowed both to operate.
Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them.
No not all , see the NARTH site.
I think so, didn’t I point out to you some of the weaknesses of the studies from the first one I looked at. Did you have a look at the NARTH site?
No, I don't actually. I mean self evident. I've already explained to you why they are most likely to adopt. If someone is married, wants to have kids, can't have kids, they are more likely to adopt than someone who can. Can you explain to me what your issue is with that statment?
Without evidence you are making an assumption.
Noo. you obviously don't know what I'm talking about then. Let's go over this:Not your assumptions. I want evidence. Polls, and the like.
Noo. you obviously don't know what I'm talking about then. Let's go over this:
I said something like gays are more likely to adopt.
Let's take this one step further: Anyone who is unable to have children is more likely to adopt.
This is just common sense.
Gays and lesbians cannot have children on their own(without counting artificial insemination). So therefore, they would be more likely to adopt than straight couples.
I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying because then you'd realize why evidence is not needed.
Now why don't you answer my question: What is your issue with my statment besides the lack of "evidence"?
I don't need evidence for that statment, thats the point, David.If you don't have evidence, i would be content with you just saying that.
Then I don't seem to understand your point at all. Care to please explain what issue you had with the statment?That was my point.
No David. Listen, let's take this one step at a time:My point? That you had no evidence.
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?