Homosexual Adoption (moral, homosexuals, marriage, moral, preference)

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by true blood

My question may be off topic if so I'm sorry. I'm curious since this topic is relative to homesexuals does anyone know any homosexual persons or groups that are christians? Are there gay christians?

Yes, there are. And you're right, this is off topic for this thread. If you would like to start another thread about this, I would be more than happy to address your question more fully there.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by true blood

My question may be off topic if so I'm sorry. I'm curious since this topic is relative to homesexuals does anyone know any homosexual persons or groups that are christians? Are there gay christians?

Yes, there are. And you're right, this is off topic for this thread. If you would like to start another thread about this, I would be more than happy to address your question more fully there.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Redeemed of God

There is no such thing as a gay Christian. It's an oxymoron and it goes against the Bible. I know of people who were gay and became Christians but I know there is no such thing as a gay Christian. Yes...you may have heard of gay ministers but you can't believe in Jesus Christ and be a homosexual or believe homosexuality is ok.

You're off topic again. If this is an issue you want to discuss, please start another thread and I would be MORE than happy to address your statements there.


Now, please get back to the issue of gays being allowed to adopt children in need of a home. Any further posts not on topic will be deleted. Thank you.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Redeemed of God

There is no such thing as a gay Christian. It's an oxymoron and it goes against the Bible. I know of people who were gay and became Christians but I know there is no such thing as a gay Christian. Yes...you may have heard of gay ministers but you can't believe in Jesus Christ and be a homosexual or believe homosexuality is ok.

You're off topic again. If this is an issue you want to discuss, please start another thread and I would be MORE than happy to address your statements there.


Now, please get back to the issue of gays being allowed to adopt children in need of a home. Any further posts not on topic will be deleted. Thank you.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by OctoberTheHottie

Runt you didn't say why?? Not that you need to answer but I was just curious why??

Sorry, my bad (class was about to end so I wrote a quick... kinda incomplete response).

My reasons:

1. Adoption is about providing children with a stable, loving household. Parenting is about producing a "good", "useful" human being. I don't think there is anything to indicate that the homosexual population AS A WHOLE is unable to give a child these things. Yes, there are exceptions... some homosexual households might NOT be stable... but the same can be said for heterosexual households as well.

2. The arguement that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because they wouldn't be able to provide a "stable" household or raise a child in an "ideal" parential environment is bunk. In my opinion a household with TWO parents is always more "stable" than a household with only one, homosexual couples are equal to heterosexuals in providing that two parent household, and a homosexual couple should be given preference over a single heterosexual invididual because two people would be able to support a child together better than one. Yet there are many instances in society where it is a-okay for children to be raised in a "less than ideal" environment with only one parent: A single man or woman can adopt (though it is harder than if they are married) and yet a homosexual couple cannot? A mother is allowed to keep her baby even if she does not have a husband despite this being a "less than stable" environment and a husband can keep his child even if his wife dies, and yet a homosexual couple cannot raise a child together in a more "financially secure" household? A man or woman can raise a child alone if they gain sole custody of their child despite this being a "less than ideal" environment... yet two homosexuals cannot raise a child as a couple? This seems very stupid to me. I don't even think the issue is about a stable environment. I think that is just the excuse the opposition uses because their real fear, that a homosexual couple could not provide a MORAL household, is not a valid enough excuse to prevent homosexuals from adopting... which brings me to #3.

3. My belief is that homosexuality is not "immoral". Therefore, raising children in a "homosexual household" would not be threatening their moral development. Therefore, once again, there is no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by OctoberTheHottie

Runt you didn't say why?? Not that you need to answer but I was just curious why??

Sorry, my bad (class was about to end so I wrote a quick... kinda incomplete response).

My reasons:

1. Adoption is about providing children with a stable, loving household. Parenting is about producing a "good", "useful" human being. I don't think there is anything to indicate that the homosexual population AS A WHOLE is unable to give a child these things. Yes, there are exceptions... some homosexual households might NOT be stable... but the same can be said for heterosexual households as well.

2. The arguement that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because they wouldn't be able to provide a "stable" household or raise a child in an "ideal" parential environment is bunk. In my opinion a household with TWO parents is always more "stable" than a household with only one, homosexual couples are equal to heterosexuals in providing that two parent household, and a homosexual couple should be given preference over a single heterosexual invididual because two people would be able to support a child together better than one. Yet there are many instances in society where it is a-okay for children to be raised in a "less than ideal" environment with only one parent: A single man or woman can adopt (though it is harder than if they are married) and yet a homosexual couple cannot? A mother is allowed to keep her baby even if she does not have a husband despite this being a "less than stable" environment and a husband can keep his child even if his wife dies, and yet a homosexual couple cannot raise a child together in a more "financially secure" household? A man or woman can raise a child alone if they gain sole custody of their child despite this being a "less than ideal" environment... yet two homosexuals cannot raise a child as a couple? This seems very stupid to me. I don't even think the issue is about a stable environment. I think that is just the excuse the opposition uses because their real fear, that a homosexual couple could not provide a MORAL household, is not a valid enough excuse to prevent homosexuals from adopting... which brings me to #3.

3. My belief is that homosexuality is not "immoral". Therefore, raising children in a "homosexual household" would not be threatening their moral development. Therefore, once again, there is no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.

[anders]

Runt,

You sum it up beautifully. I agree completely.

[anders]

Runt,

You sum it up beautifully. I agree completely.