Who should be allowed to adopt?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear OllieFranz,

Yes they are. And sometimes they are even truer parents than the biological ones,

I would say that’s impossible, they may be better carers but you have redefined the word parent there to suit your homosexual agenda. No-biological parents have traditionally been called step-parents, and were of course an opposite sex couple, now with the homosexual worldview imposing itself on everything homosexual parents are just the same as everyone one else and are assumed to be same-sex couples.

as the despised Samaritan was a truer neighbor to the mugging victim than the priest and the Levite in Jesus parable of loving one's neighbor.

Ah but the Samaritan would still have been a truer neighbour by what he did whether he had same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction. The sexual attraction and activity of the Samaritan is not mentioned and irrelevant.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ohioprof,

Catholic adoption agencies do discriminate against gay adopters, which is what they cannot do under

Mass. state law. If they don't want to comply with the law, then they can shut down. If they want to discriminate in violation of state laws, then they don't have any business providing adoption services. If the Catholic Church doesn't like it, tough.

No I would say that is incorrect as RC agencies only discriminate against gay couples, you cant say they discriminate against gays in general from my explanation of what I have understand they do. That’s more mis representation.
And yes the law does now discriminate against the Christian beliefs, as it does against other religion’s beliefs on this.
We have already seen evidence that RC agencies will shut down, widely recognised as some of the best agencies especially with the most difficult cases to adopt.
Maybe we will see gay run adoption agencies take their place, if they do it will be interesting to see whether they refuse to place with Christians and whether if they do they refer them to other agencies.

 

[brightmorningstar]

I think one cares for the children by wanting what is best for them. The Christian desire would therefore be a man/woman faithful biological adoption.

 

[naotmaa]

I would say that’s impossible, they may be better carers but you have redefined the word parent there to suit your homosexual agenda. No-biological parents have traditionally been called step-parents, and were of course an opposite sex couple,

I know many adopted children who refer to their parents as their parents..not step-parents, regardless of the sex of both their parents.

So you think that gay people want to adopt in order to follow some "homosexual agenda"?

now with the homosexual worldview imposing itself on everything homosexual parents are just the same as everyone one else and are assumed to be same-sex couples

"homosexual worldview"? Assumed to be same sex? I don't know what you mean here.

Ah but the Samaritan would still have been a truer neighbour by what he did whether he had same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction. The sexual attraction and activity of the Samaritan is not mentioned and irrelevant.

Right. So what does it matter what the sexual orientation of the parents are?

 

[naotmaa]

I think one cares for the children by wanting what is best for them. The Christian desire would therefore be a man/woman faithful biological adoption.

Yes and there has been nothing wrong for a child to have two moms or two dads. The Children grow up normal and healthy.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear naotmaa,

So you think that gay people want to adopt in order to follow some "homosexual agenda"?

Ah that’s a different and mutually exclusive question. There are Christians who have same-sex attraction, who see that same-sex sex is error and seek to avoid it, are they homosexuals? If so the the homosexual agenda doesn’t seem to represent them.

Right. So what does it matter what the sexual orientation of the parents are?

It doesn’t that’s my point what matters is that one is man and the other is a woman. That they may be a gay man and a lesbian woman is irrelevant. The key point is it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child so the sexual desires is irrelevant. Your argument is purely based on sexual desires.

Yes and there has been nothing wrong for a child to have two moms or two dads. The Children grow up normal and healthy.

I disagree I believe the studies that show this not to be the general case. Thats just another reason why I believe the Bible is the word of God.

 

[naotmaa]

Dear naotmaa,

Ah that’s a different and mutually exclusive question. There are Christians who have same-sex attraction, who see that same-sex sex is error and seek to avoid it, are they homosexuals? If so the the homosexual agenda doesn’t seem to represent them

What is the homosexual agenda? I probably should have asked that first.

It doesn’t that’s my point what matters is that one is man and the other is a woman. That they may be a gay man and a lesbian woman is irrelevant. The key point is it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child so the sexual desires is irrelevant. Your argument is purely based on sexual desires.

How is my argument based on "sexual desires"?

I disagree I believe the studies that show this not to be the general case. Thats just another reason why I believe the Bible is the word of God.

Wny do you think that?

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear ohioprof,
No I would say that is incorrect as RC agencies only discriminate against gay couples, you cant say they discriminate against gays in general from my explanation of what I have understand they do. That’s more mis representation.
And yes the law does now discriminate against the Christian beliefs, as it does against other religion’s beliefs on this.
We have already seen evidence that RC agencies will shut down, widely recognised as some of the best agencies especially with the most difficult cases to adopt.
Maybe we will see gay run adoption agencies take their place, if they do it will be interesting to see whether they refuse to place with Christians and whether if they do they refer them to other agencies.

If these agencies cannot bring themselves to adhere to the law, then they can shut down.

 

[david_x]

It's not a waist of time to convinve gays and lesbian coupls to adopt. They are more likely to do so than many straight couples are.

Now who's discriminating.

 

[naotmaa]

Now who's discriminating.

How is that discrimination? In context I was explaining why gay and lesbian couples should be urged to adopt just as much as straight couples.

 

[david_x]

How is that discrimination? In context I was explaining why gay and lesbian couples should be urged to adopt just as much as straight couples.

You were, but in that last sentence you definently took it too far.

 

[naotmaa]

You were, but in that last sentence you definently took it too far.

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?

 

[Ohioprof]

Now who's discriminating.

This is not discriminating. The poster pointed out that gay couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to want to adopt. That may indeed be true, since many heterosexual couples prefer to have biological children.

 

[Ohioprof]

I think one cares for the children by wanting what is best for them. The Christian desire would therefore be a man/woman faithful biological adoption.

What is a "biological adoption?" Adoptions are legal, not biological. That's what makes them adoptions.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear naotmaa,

Ah that’s a different and mutually exclusive question. There are Christians who have same-sex attraction, who see that same-sex sex is error and seek to avoid it, are they homosexuals? If so the the homosexual agenda doesn’t seem to represent them.

It doesn’t that’s my point what matters is that one is man and the other is a woman. That they may be a gay man and a lesbian woman is irrelevant. The key point is it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child so the sexual desires is irrelevant. Your argument is purely based on sexual desires.

I disagree I believe the studies that show this not to be the general case. Thats just another reason why I believe the Bible is the word of God.

All of the peer-reviewed studies of outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples show that they do just as well as children raised by opposite-sex parents. Remember the links to the studies that I posted? Did you bother to read them?

Don't tell me again that you have studies that show the opposite. The study you cited was of outcomes for children of single parents, not children of same-sex couples. I have not heard you call for a ban on single-parent adoptions.

 

[morningstar2651]

Ironic...one of the choices is "Non-Christian or other religions"...well, apart from "non-Christian", there is only one other religion...and approximately 3/4 of the votes are against them adopting. Maybe they should have read the option a bit more closely?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear naotmaa,

What is the homosexual agenda? I probably should have asked that first.

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.

How is my argument based on "sexual desires"?

because it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child so the sexual desires of the man and woman is irrelevant. 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.

Wny do you think that?

Because I believe in Jesus Christ as the way the truth and the life.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Ohioprof,

If these agencies cannot bring themselves to adhere to the law, then they can shut down.

They are Christian so they will not want to disobey the state law and have already started closing down.

This is not discriminating. The poster pointed out that gay couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to want to adopt. That may indeed be true, since many heterosexual couples prefer to have biological children.

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.

What is a "biological adoption?" Adoptions are legal, not biological. That's what makes them adoptions.

Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them.

All of the peer-reviewed studies of outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples show that they do just as well as children raised by opposite-sex parents.

No not all , see the NARTH site.

Remember the links to the studies that I posted? Did you bother to read them?

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?

 

[irateional]

Let those who can conceive children be the ones to adopt them.
/quote]
Why?

What makes those incapable of conceiving children so evil? I'm sure lots of infertile couples must love you!

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear irateional,

What makes those incapable of conceiving children so evil?

I dont know I dont think they are, perhaps you could explain why you think they are evil.

I'm sure lots of infertile couples must love you!

Ah no the couples that can produce children are man/woman, as to opposed to same-sex couples who cant produce children between them whether fertile or infertile.