Should the GOP oppose gay adoption?

posted at 5:30 pm on December 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

James Richardson tosses out the gauntlet at his new blog, The Skepticians, in discussing a recent ruling in Florida that overturned a ban on gay couples adopting children.  Richardson worked at the RNC this past year, and believes that the gay-rights issue will eventually marginalize the Republican Party.  He sharply criticizes the proponents of the ban in Florida:

Florida’s indefensible ban dates back 31 years to Anita Bryant’s “Save our Children” crusade. On the day of its passage, freshman Sen. Don Chamberlin of Clearwater asked of his colleagues: “Will we sleep better knowing we have institutionalized shame for those who have already felt shame? Is there sufficient justification to deny one child — one parent — the joy of being a family?” In the eyes of Florida’s state senate, there was, indeed, “sufficient justification” to pass the reprehensible ban. Chamberlin’s heartfelt and courageous plea was met with support of only four senators: Betty Castor, Jack Gordon, Kenneth Myers and Lori Wilson.

Joining Florida’s dubious ranks are Utah—a state settled largely for the Mormon Church’s non-conventional marriage practices (discontinued in 1890)—who bans unmarried straight or gay couples from adopting or fostering children, and Mississippi—a state with a less than sterling record in upholding the rights of minorities—who has legislation to ban gay couples, but not single gays, from adopting. What is it about gay couples like Frank Gill and his partner that are so toxic to children? Florida’s current listing of “adoptable” children includes 453 Boys, 274 Girls and 39 Sibling Groups – none of which can be adopted by gay men and women. Having the government (i.e. Katrina bunglers) raise the next generation of Americans seems much more preferential than a loving, stable home with, God forbid, two same-sex parents…

My support for gay adoption will surely be met with hostility and, no doubt, charges of RHINO’ism by many of my colleagues, but the Grand Old Party is at a crossroads and now is not the time for an echo chamber. Homosexual demagoguery is not the answer to the Party’s woes, particularly when gay men and women represent the only demographic in which John McCain bested President Bush (27% to 19% based on exit polling). And as Daniel Blatt notes, gay-hostile rhetoric no longer resonates in suburban areas with soccer moms, many of whom have gay friends or family members, and plays even worse with young voters, 61% of which voted against stripping gay couples of the right to marry.

In this case, the judge ruled that the state of Florida had conflicting statutes in allowing gay couples and single gay people to act as foster parents while denying them the right to adopt children.  That does seem rather strange.  If gay couples cannot adequately serve as adoptive parents, why would the state allow them to act in the more-risky role of foster parents?

My preference would be to see orphaned children placed in married homes with a mother and father.  That would be my preference for all children, as I believe that to be the healthiest environment in the general sense.  However, I would much rather see a child adopted by loving single parents or gay couples than raised in orphanages or series of foster homes.  While there are many couples waiting for babies through adoption services with wait times as long as five years, many children that are older or who have special needs wait for their entire childhood to find a home.

I’d prefer, though, that any changes to public policy come from the legislature or referendum.  The judge was right to note the hypocrisy, but judges should limit themselves to constitutional challenges when it comes to changing law.  Our system does not set judges as an unelected star chamber to decide on public policy.  The people of Florida may have a rational reason to have two sets of qualifications for foster homes and adoption, even if the judge doesn’t agree with it.  If it doesn’t violate the state constitution, then the judge’s role is to enforce the law, not change it.

Also, James is a nice guy — we’ve met a couple of times — but he takes the wrong tone in this challenge.  Public adoption is a difficult responsibility, and the opponents of gay adoption are concerned about the welfare of children placed in homes.  For some reason, James seems unwilling to credit them with any good motives at all.  If he doesn’t want hostility as a response, he might be advised not to offer it as an argument in the first place.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

but the church has changed, and the authority has shifted from the scripture to academics that are interpreting what they mean and not what they say…is that good? I don’t know, just reporting what is happening.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Conservatives (like the Baptists) would say that this is a bad thing. They have a point. Some churches have become SO permissive that I hesitate to call them Christian churches anymore.

I would say that it’s a mixed bag. The abolishment of slavery was (without question) a good thing. Is my judgement based on scripture? — not necessarily.

The crux of the matter is, are the scriptures the ONLY (exclusive) authority on ALL matters? — some people believe that this is so. I don’t. For me, the Holy Spirit is the OTHER authority that has equal merit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would “lead us into all truth.” To me, that implies that we are on a voyage of discovery — not all truth had been revealed to us at the time of His ascension.

CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 11:57 PM

the verses that you have cited in Timothy and Corinthians have more to do with culture than they do with commandments from God. I could be wrong.

The two quotes from Tim and Corinth are absolute, they are not culture, they are the written word of God…so a decision has to be made…
I made my decision, I broke the rule of scripture ( it won’t be the last one I break) and enjoyed the leadership of a women pastor (and I would not have chosen her if she did not understand the potential violation of scripture). By God’s free will, it was my right (along with my wife) to choose who teaches me and my family, the Word. So what price do I pay? I don’t know, but I will find out…but I am comfortable that the Word that I received was accurate as “man” could divine.

right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would “lead us into all truth.” To me, that implies that we are on a voyage of discovery — not all truth had been revealed to us at the time of His ascension.

CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 11:57 PM

And you and I are in the middle of another “reformation”. And you are now beginning to recognize it. It is no longer “sola scriptura” which has reined for 500 hundred years. Some churches have gone to far perhaps, but then if the “Holy Spirit” guided them, maybe not. And others are clinging, like the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, or the Mormon’s, some Pentacostal and Baptists (Southern Baptists gave, then took away women leadership).
Sit back and enjoy the reformation, it has been 500 years since Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the church door…now we get to live through another great change, a rare event.
Good night, and God Bless…

right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 AM

I sometimes wonder why logic flees when it comes to gay issues. Why are gay people’s motives often portrayed base evil and subhuman?

This is a false analogy, unless you define “happy” as sexual fulfillment by any means necessary.
How isolated men could “fake it as straight” remains to be seen.
You forgot to include abstinence as a choice.

Websters — Happy: enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment.

As I said in my very next paragraph it isn’t about the sex — you quoted it after all. Your the one who seems to insists that sex is the only thing that matters.

AND, if, “sexual fulfillment by any means necessary,” were the goal, wouldn’t it be easier to be happy with a woman? Lots more of then around and easier to get.

Is abstinence really an alternative for well-being and contentment?

Again, a non-argument.
When it comes to “choices” and attraction, these are acts of the will that can be controlled whereas your “people” make it sound more like a compulsion.

Attraction is not an act of will — never has been. How and whether you actually act on the attraction is the choice — but, “the heart wants what the heart wants,” is often said because it is an accurate description of attraction.

The only problem about “the cause” is that it represents a complete capitulation to the basest of human natures (often redefined as sin by the Bible).
Homosexuality incarnates the twin sins of lust and selfishness.
It produces no offspring and is done only to meet desire of the flesh.
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Never said it wasn’t a sin — of course so is sex outside of marriage, which is also a, “capitulation to the basest of human natures,” unless it is your belief that homosexuality is an even baser (ererer – just sounded like it should have more er’s on it) human nature that everyone experiences, I personally don’t think that is even close to true.

Lust, well there you go back to only sex. What about emotional well being? That doesn’t involve sex! If it did your argument for abstinence would fall apart since without sex the abstinent would never be content or have a sense of well-being, the definition of happy.

As far as your idea of selfish, your not that family with 17 kids are you? Or are you abstinent or barren (which I am very sorry I even had to mention and I’m sorry for you). Otherwise you have sex without producing offspring only to meet the desires of the flesh — selfish according to your comment.

Is masturbation selfish? Produces no offspring, check – desires of the flesh, check!

Or is it just the distasteful thought that two people — check that, two GAYS, could love each other — and isn’t that actually the opposite of selfish? Loving and devoting yourself to another.

I don’t know you, and I am probably off base about some peoples attitudes posted here, but sometimes it seems that the distasteful act of two men or two women loving one another twists peoples minds into a loss of perspective towards, “‘your’ people,” as you put it. “The people I know,” as I put it, are charitable, loving, and quite happy. Of course there are the the anti-8 morons on the other side who have the same attitude but with the opposite perspective. With those idiots attacks I guess it is easy to see why negative biases persist.

BTW, back on Selfish, Websters actually says, “being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication.” Wow, isn’t that what you said was NOT selfish? Of course they are discussing genes, not complete humans, but it almost sounded like what you described as being optimal.

Everyone that loves is born of God and knows God.
David

LifeTrek on December 3, 2008 at 12:23 AM

If I’d realized that yet another HotAir thread had already devolved into religious disputation by the time I got my last posts together, I wouldn’t have bothered to make the effort. If HotAir could provide a permanent Religious Fight Club thread, I suspect I’m not the only one who would be grateful.

JM Hanes on December 2, 2008 at 10:28 PM

The first rule of Religious Fight Club is you don’t talk about Religious Fight Club.

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 3:53 AM

For known human history, ABNORMAL SEX was recognized as a sickness not an alternative life style. Beginning in the 1970s. militant nazi queers began the nonsense of an alternative life style based on ABNORMAL SEX. The self limiting nature of choosing ABNORMAL SEX to define a person shows the true sickness of such people. The Democrat Party’s standard tactic of Class Warfare with special rights for special people that support Democrats makes QUEERS a prime group for Democrats to support just like SLAVE OWNERS during & before the Civil War.

Max47 on December 3, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Yes, the GOP must oppose sodomite adoption!!! (Remember, they are not gay, but sodomites)

trainwife1962 on December 3, 2008 at 8:12 AM

For known human history, ABNORMAL SEX was recognized as a sickness not an alternative life style.

Well, not exactly. In ancient times it was considered overindulgence and a sign of corruption. But most accounts involve eunuch boy slaves.

Aztec priests practiced homosexual rites with each other as part of their sacrificial rites, complete with long blood-soaked hair.

But alternative lifestyle? No, that was facilitated by modern technology – condoms, enemas, understanding of how proper cleanup can prevent disease, and the pill’s influence in removing an expectation of fertility from heterosexual relationships thus making them somewhat comparable.

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 8:51 AM

Yes, the GOP must oppose sodomite adoption!!! (Remember, they are not gay, but sodomites)

trainwife1962 on December 3, 2008 at 8:12 AM

You have just excluded about 80% of all married couples…do you know what sodomy is?

anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex

See what you get when you apply Sola Scriptura, Scriptura Sola (by scripture alone, and only the scripture)?
Do you still stand by your stance?

right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:10 AM

I have news for you. Heterosexual anal copulation is mostly in pornography. It is not in any way a staple of real heterosexual relationships.

Straights, if any are still paying attention – am I wrong?

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Straights, if any are still paying attention – am I wrong?

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Yes. At least among a younger generation. But since I got chided for bringing it up a day and three pages ago, I’ll say no more.

Anyway, the dead horse called, asked for more flogging. : ) I’m just surprised the debate is still going.

Anna on December 3, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Straights, if any are still paying attention – am I wrong?

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM

According to a 2005 CDC report on Americans age 15-44, about 35% of women have had anal sex with men.

Among men, they are about 10 times more likely to have had anal sex with a woman than a man.

Oral sex percentages are much higher.

dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 11:05 AM

What that means is that only around one third of women 15-44 have EVER done it. Having had anal sex is not the same thing as anal sex being a vital part of their relationship.

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Like I said before, gays and lesbians will be allowed to adopt some day and yes, eventually marry. Unfortunately, the GOP will fight progress until it has no choice but to accept it.

Since the GOP made gay marriage an issue, more states have accepted gay marriage or civil unions. In states where they couldn’t get married anyway, the law was reinforced – so where’s the progress? It doesn’t seem like the issue is totally counterproductive.

jtorres138 on December 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Woops, meant to say that it seems like the issue is totally counterproductive.

jtorres138 on December 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Oh, and I am forced to conclude that Anna is extraordinary ;)

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Y-E-S !

Mark Garnett on December 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Thanks, people, for totally grossing me out!
As if this topic wasn’t distasteful enough, you’ve now made it vomit-making.

And jtorres, it isn’t a counterproductive measure for the GOP; 3 states passed homosexual marriage bans in November with many of the votes against being made by Democrats.

Jenfidel on December 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Homosexuals do not understand children because most do not have offspring of their own.

Here is the kind of mentoring homosexuals deem healthy for other people’s children.

Google: Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools

and;

Google: “The Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century”

*“The little Black Book” was passed out to children, as young as 11 years old, in a Brookline, MA school by members of Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which has programs in 4,000 of our public schools.

Homosexuals should never be permitted to adopt children. Why are homosexuals so interested in our children?

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I think heterosexual families should get first dibs, single people 2nd dibs, gay couples 3rd dibs.
As far as foster parenting-they let just about anyone do that.
People who foster parent should have to take a psychological exam. Their job is much more difficult than just being a parent.
Most of them do it for the money-this would weed those people out better.
But one thing’s for sure-there aren’t enough people adopting or foster parenting to fill the need. Something’s got to be done about it.

Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Why are homosexuals so interested in our children?

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I’ve always wondered that myself. They seem so much more interested than anyone else.

Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Like I said before, gays and lesbians will be allowed to adopt some day and yes, eventually marry. Unfortunately, the GOP will fight progress until it has no choice but to accept it.

Since the GOP made gay marriage an issue, more states have accepted gay marriage or civil unions. In states where they couldn’t get married anyway, the law was reinforced – so where’s the progress? It doesn’t seem like the issue is totally counterproductive.

jtorres138 on December 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM

What, exactly, makes greenlighting public acceptance of an abnormal sexual preference “progress.” Will bringing beastiality into public normalcy also be “progress?”

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Furthermore, gay marriage has been banned in 30 out of 30 ballot initiatives. The idea it has become more popular or accepted is ridiculous, San Francisco, Vermont, and Connecticut, Liberal bastions all, aside.

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM


What, exactly, makes greenlighting public acceptance of an abnormal sexual preference “progress.” Will bringing beastiality into public normalcy also be “progress?”

That’s a good question. Frank Kameny — the “gay” pioneer revered by homosexual activists for his role in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to effectively reclassify homosexuals as normal, has some ideas on that question.

Google: ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK ‘as Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind’
It’s only a matter of time.

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Further still, now that I think about it, your premise the GOP made gay marriage an issue is also erroneous. Homosexual activists made gay marriage an issue, starting with the judical fiat handed down in the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

So “Man Openly Seeking Man” is now progress. I hope your definition of triumph isn’t as lackluster as your definition of progress.

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Homosexuals should never be permitted to adopt children. Why are homosexuals so interested in our children?

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM

The “our” children that the FL case handled were not cared for by their straight parents, who must have been less interested in them than a family requires.

Interest in children probably varies more by gender than by sexual orientation. A lesbian mother likely has a stronger nurturing instinct than with a straight male.

dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Interest in children probably varies more by gender than by sexual orientation. A lesbian mother likely has a stronger nurturing instinct than with a straight male.

dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Unless she’s a butch, who will probably overextend herself to be a mentally made caricature of a man she wishes she was, but will never and can never be.

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Unless she’s a butch, who will probably overextend herself to be a mentally made caricature of a man she wishes she was, but will never and can never be.

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Maybe. A lot of kids have thought their parents were overbearing, emotionally unavailable, out of touch or flawed in some of several other ways.

dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Maybe. A lot of kids have thought their parents were overbearing, emotionally unavailable, out of touch or flawed in some of several other ways.

dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Indeed, but most of those would not make it through the adoption process.

Gays adopting children is just an open, inexorable invitation to gender-confused drama.

BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Jenfidel on December 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Thanks, people, for totally grossing me out!
As if this topic wasn’t distasteful enough, you’ve now made it vomit-making.

No, believe it or not I restrain myself, and homosexuals hide behind my decency. I do not dare mention more details of why homosexual behavior is not comprable to heterosexual behavior. Decent folk like you could not stand it. You say practice safe sex, but you have no idea what that means to a male homosexual. Go to their web sites and see. And, since this thread is supposed to be on gay parenting, don’t miss the male lactation discussions.

If you say it is none of your business, fine – that is reasonable. But then don’t say that gays are just like everyone else. Because your head is in the sand.

And if you look way back you will see that I was not necessarily against gay adoption.

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Why are homosexuals so interested in our children?

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Just think what it is like to be homosexual at the age of 15 ……… and read all the enlightened thought spewed on this thread.

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 4:29 PM

If you say it is none of your business, fine – that is reasonable. But then don’t say that gays are just like everyone else. Because your head is in the sand. Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Perhaps I should direct you to some very graphic heterosexual websites. The Internet is full of them.

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Just think what it is like to be homosexual

Can you tell me what that means? I have heard lots of definitions for homosexual. Is it that you have had a homosexual experience or homosexual thoughts, that your desire is more for your own sex than the opposite sex (does this exclude bisexuals?), that you have a homosexual relationship, or that you just declare yourself to be homosexual?

Preference, desire – these change. Emotions change. How could a 15-year old possibly know, I mean know, that they won’t?

You are a person just like any other, with lots of various desires. This does not a separate type of person make. I can’t say whether I will never be attracted to someone of my own sex, I have no crystal ball. But I do have a wife. I will not violate my decision to be with only her.

Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Should we let known perverts adopt children?

If you can not figure out the obvious answer to this question, you probably are not fit to roam around in the civilized world.

SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Preference, desire – these change. Emotions change. How could a 15-year old possibly know, I mean know, that they won’t? – Amphipolis on December 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Did you know your sexual preferrence at the age of 15? The term that you are grasping for is reparative therapy. I would suggest that you Google the term. Or, go read Freud’s 1935 letter to the American mother of a homosexual. Here’s the link: http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/03/17/freud-on-homosexuality-letter-to-a-mother/

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Why are homosexuals so interested in our children?

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I’ve always wondered that myself. They seem so much more interested than anyone else.

Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Really?

Maybe the same reason a barren couple is more interested in ‘your children,’ right? Of course a barren couple is one of ‘you,’ so that is okay, right?

Doesn’t matter if someone wants a loving family does it — it is us against them!

Oh, oh, oh, what about Mother Theresa? She was really interested in ‘your children.’ Was she one of ‘you?’ Nun at 18, very strict upbringing. No real record of relationships other then with God.

If they are ‘your children’ why are they up for adoption? Shouldn’t you be caring for them? What kind of a person lets their children go without a loving home.

Listen to yourselves and ask if the comments here help or hurt the GOP?

Better yet, ask yourselves if hatred, of any kind, actually helps ‘your children.’ Should a child be raised in a home where hatred pours out of the keyboard every time gay issues are discussed?

The biases displayed here certainly hasn’t helped the anti-gay cause just as the idiots in CA haven’t helped the anti-8 cause.
David

LifeTrek on December 3, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Oh, oh, oh, what about Mother Theresa? She was really interested in ‘your children.’ Was she one of ‘you?’ Nun at 18, very strict upbringing. No real record of relationships other then with God.

Wow.

Now you’re comparing Mother Teresa with sexual perverts?

You’ve really gone off the deep end.

Maybe there is some correlation between homosexuality and the lack of ability to formulate an intelligent thought..

SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Wow.

Now you’re comparing Mother Teresa with sexual perverts?

You’ve really gone off the deep end.

Maybe there is some correlation between homosexuality and the lack of ability to formulate an intelligent thought..

SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM

I guess that you are going for Sainthood SaintOlaf? The fact that a high percentage of Roman Catholic priests and nuns are homosexual is a known fact. Most have chosen a life of celibacy and devotion to their work.

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 8:26 PM

The “our” children that the FL case handled were not cared for by their straight parents, who must have been less interested in them than a family requires.

Interest in children probably varies more by gender than by sexual orientation. A lesbian mother likely has a stronger nurturing instinct than with a straight male.

Homosexuals should never be permitted to adopt children.

Google: The Trojan Couch

You may find Part I quite interesting.

Also Google: ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK ‘as Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind’

Maybe the issue will become clearer to you.

sinsing on December 3, 2008 at 8:30 PM

No adoptions for any gays.

The church has failed in taking care of the orphans and has allowed the state to do it and this is what we get for it!

Mercy4Me on December 3, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Listen to yourselves and ask if the comments here help or hurt the GOP?

Thats neither here nor there. If supporting traditional morality hurts the GOP then why should anyone vote for them?

Better yet, ask yourselves if hatred, of any kind, actually helps ‘your children.’

You’re equating opposition to the adoption of children by same-sex couples as “hatred” which is a neat trick. Its easy to win debates when you can state definitively that your political opponents are motivated by “hatred”. Back in reality there are people who oppose gay adoption for a myriad of social/religious/societal/practical reasons. If the “hatred” argument doesn’t work out you might want to formulate a new one. Good luck.

aengus on December 3, 2008 at 8:51 PM

All I have to say is, ugh! I could not have made it through my life without the love of my nine nieces and nephews. There is something very special about the bright, non-judgmental, loving eyes of a child. If someone would harm anyone of them, they would incur my wrath.

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM

You’re equating opposition to the adoption of children by same-sex couples as “hatred” which is a neat trick. Its easy to win debates when you can state definitively that your political opponents are motivated by “hatred”. Back in reality there are people who oppose gay adoption for a myriad of social/religious/societal/practical reasons. If the “hatred” argument doesn’t work out you might want to formulate a new one. Good luck.

aengus on December 3, 2008 at 8:51 PM

I suppose that you will say that you love the sinner (homosexual), but hate the sin (homosexuality)? May I pose a kind of different question? Should a celibate homosexual be allowed to adopt a child?

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 9:32 PM

The fact that a high percentage of Roman Catholic priests and nuns are homosexual is a known fact. Most have chosen a life of celibacy and devotion to their work.

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Well if it is a “known fact”…please tell us the percentage of the “known fact”.
Link please.

right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Hello? Where is the “known fact”, it should be so well known that you can just type it out…having problem Googling the info?

right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:44 PM

That’s what I thought…throws out a comment, but can’t back it up…keep Googling, you’ll find somewhere the “known fact”…

right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM

No one knows the actual percentage of the Roman Catholic Clergy that are attracted to their own sex — same-sex attraction. Here is a link:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

We will never know the true percentage. If queried before June of last year, I would have answered that that I was not gay, since I have never had a homosexual relationship …….. and, I am not a priest.

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 10:14 PM

No one knows the actual percentage of the Roman Catholic Clergy that are attracted to their own sex — same-sex

SC.Charlie on December 3, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Then the statement that it is a “known fact that a high percentage” is wrong.
That is what happens with these arguments, people start throwing out comments, emotional comments, and they are not accurate…just stick with the accurate statements, otherwise we begin to wonder if you are being dishonest, or are you just sloppy with facts.
Either way you are manipulating someones reputation irresponsibly.

right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 7:51 AM

The crux of the matter is, are the scriptures the ONLY (exclusive) authority on ALL matters? — some people believe that this is so. I don’t. For me, the Holy Spirit is the OTHER authority that has equal merit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would “lead us into all truth.” To me, that implies that we are on a voyage of discovery — not all truth had been revealed to us at the time of His ascension.

CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 11:57 PM

If what you think is the Holy Spirit reveals ‘truth’ to you that differs from what scripture says, it is not what you say it is.

The Bible is very clear in condemning homosexual behavior. Following another standard is easier, until the voyage of discovery becomes a shipwreck.

Right_of_Attila on December 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Should the GOP oppose gay adoption?

You may as well ask the question…. “Should Republicans become Democrats?”

Maxx on December 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM

If what you think is the Holy Spirit reveals ‘truth’ to you that differs from what scripture says, it is not what you say it is.

The Bible is very clear in condemning homosexual behavior. Following another standard is easier, until the voyage of discovery becomes a shipwreck.

Right_of_Attila on December 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM

I would not dispute this. The great difficulty throughout history has been the answers to “what comes from man? versus what comes from God?”. Martin Luther’s focus on scripture alone was a reaction to the traditions of the Catholic church and to the proclamations of the Pope that were not a part of scripture and that he found objectionable on moral or scriptural grounds. Good for him (I am a Protestant as well). The question, however, remains. What comes from man? and what comes from God? Jesus warned his disciples against the yeast of the Pharisees — rules taught by men that have nothing to do with God. The scriptures and the Holy Spirit are the only guides that we have (to help us tell the difference).

My collie says:

BTW, it is our belief the many scientific discoveries that we have made over the last 20 centuries are among those truths that were never revealed to us in the scriptures.

CyberCipher on December 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7