Should the GOP oppose gay adoption?
posted at 5:30 pm on December 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »
Once again the gay community makes it about them. It’s not about them. It’s about the children and what is best for them. I don’t think even single people should be able to adopt unless a child has not and would not have been adopted by a married couple.
I would assume and hope that strict standards are adhered to in adoption. I would hope that good moral character be a standard. If a gay person has proven to be of good moral character (and that includes not being promiscious)and no married couple is willing, then fine.
On the other hand, we have had gay’s adopting long enough now to be able to determine if a child is unduly affected by such a family, don’t we? Can’t we determine that without letting our own personal feelings get in the way? This is, after all, a child’s life we are talking about.
Rightwingsparkle on December 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Phil, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
We are adults we can do that.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I’m really incredulous. You don’t think liberals are willing to distort the news on issues other than those affecting the future of the planet?
How badly did they distort Barack Obama’s record? was that about saving the planet? How badly did they distort the news from Iraq? was that about saving the planet?
There are certain issues about which the social and political left asserts absolute thought control and permits no variance from orthodoxy. A lot of those issues are social issues. There’s a gender bias meme, a racism meme, a conservative culture of corruption meme, etc. The press is unreliable on all of these topics. Surely you know this. You just forgot. It’s ok.
Homosexuality is one of those issues. The press decided that “gay” will be a protected minority class, and that requires that it be caused by genes. Thus, the slightest shred of evidence even hinting at such a finding gets front-page treatment, whereas refutations never make the paper at all.
Scientists KNOW that homosexuality is not caused by genes. This is simply beyond dispute. It’s not controversial; yet, a bunch of others reading this are thinking I’m some unwashed bigot who’s behind the times because I’m saying so.
Genetic causes are relatively easy to rule out. Usually studies are done with identical twins, since identical twins have identical DNA. If a trait is caused by genes, then both twins will have the trait, regardless of other circumstances. If twin A has blue eyes, twin B will have blue eyes. It’s sometimes difficult to say genes CAUSED the similarity — common environment can intervene — but if both twins don’t have the trait, you know the trait is not genetic. That’s simply unquestionable.
There have been at least three studies of homosexuals that involved study of identical twins. Coincidence of homosexuality between identical twins is not 100% in any of those studies; it’s not even 50% in any of those studies. End of discussion. Homosexuality is not caused by genes. There might be related genes that contribute, but they’re not causal.
Did you hear this in a newspaper? No. What’s that tell you?
philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Gay people should be free to adopt kids, provided they take boys huting and girls to ballet lessons.
Yes, I’m that bored with this debate already….
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM
No kid that’s raised on beef jerky and a good whuppin’ every now an’ then turns out gay
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Oh hell limey. I have been told I was a lesbian since I was a kid. SURPRISE! I turned out hetro with hunting/fishing and good’o'boy tendancies.
Living in Alaska makes me.. a tom’boy!
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Lots of other threads for you to read here…
philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I wasn’t aware there were many genes that were causal factors in conditions….sure there are some, but I thought that most of the time, genes are indicators of potential, not certainties.
At some point, the whole nature/nurture line gets fuzzy – if I work out, are my muscles growing because of nature or nurture?
Similarly, there may be some people that can be induced to be homosexual through exposure to a certain environment, but there will be others that do not succumb – does this mean that there is something natural about those people that leans them toward developing homosexual traits?
We generally consider the ‘normal’ heterosexual libido to be ‘natural’ – boys grow up liking girls and vice versa – but genetically speaking, isn’t it possible that whatever ‘natural’ components that go into this development, could be switched between boys and girls? Such that a part of a boys brain is functioning in a manner more in line with a girls?
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Yeah….but none displaying such wonderful levels of assclownishness ;)
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Good for you :)
Y’know what they say about tomboys? They’re ideal for a romp in the hay without worryin’ about breakin’ ‘em ;)
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Let’s see, abortion is wrong and gay adoption is wrong, right? Ok, then let’s outlaw abortion and make gay adoption Ok! Yep, that’s the ticket. /s
Sorry, I don’t buy it. Outlaw abortion and gays don’t get to adopt. Want children? Get married to a person of the opposite sex and either have those children naturally or adopt.
Simple.
Charles Martel on December 2, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I know someone who is single and adopted two children from Central America. I forget the country (not important). The children, age 4 and 5, leave the home every day at 5:30 AM to be dropped off early at school/pre-school, and then are picked up late, around 6:15 PM when mom gets home from work. Mom gets to pay extra for early drop-off, and again for late-pickup. What a rat race.
So who should adopt… conventional married couples only with one stay at home parent.
Dasher on December 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Scientists KNOW that homosexuality is not caused by genes. This is simply beyond dispute. It’s not controversial; yet, a bunch of others reading this are thinking I’m some unwashed bigot who’s behind the times because I’m saying so.philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM
That is a crock of crap! Scientists some of them. Also believe in Global Warming. Which is a scare tactic of untruth. I knew my son was different at the age of one year. At two years old. I knew he was a girl and not a boy. Explain this then? At the age of 15, he told his father he didn’t like girls in that way. My friends and some family were upset because I knew what was going on. Scientists cannot totally prove nothing! They are human and at times idiots! It is apparent that you read to much and believe what you read. I am not going to argue with you. I know and I knew my son was different. Because when you love a child, the gift of love can show you many things.
sheebe on December 2, 2008 at 12:50 PM
The focal point is:
1) Is adoption by a gay couple (or individual) in the best interests of the child?
Whether you are trying to advance the status of gays is irrelevant. So is every other political motive. Children are not to be used as a means to provide a gay couple’s wish fulfillment to play-act being a “family” any more than they should be used by Bible-thumpers to grind an axe.
If gays are a product of their genetics, then adoption of a child is less potentially harmful to the child. “Can’t make a black child white” and vice-versa.
If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice on the sexual spectrum, then it is no different than any other sexual fetish or deviation from conventional, practical, life-producing heterosexual intercourse, and thus gays would enjoy no special treatment or consideration to separate them from bestiality, pedophilia, etc.
IF homosexuality is a choice, then you have a potential situation where a gay parent would/could mold or influence a child to be something they are not, or normally would not be, absent the “gay” influence. This goes way beyond following in a parent’s footsteps, and goes to the very heart of the child’s identity. If a child’s sexual orientation or identity is set by genetics, but is heavily influenced or swayed by the gay parent and their lifestyle, then you have a situation that is clearly not in the child’s best interests.
This would apply to gay children placed with hetero parents as well. Ask many homosexuals born and raised in hetero families that don’t understand them,and see how it effected their identities. Do you expect a homo couple to be different from that? Compare/contrast also with cross-racial/ethnic adoptions, which is also heavily debated.
The sub-question to the “best interests” analysis is “Is homosexuality a genetic trait or a environmental/cultural choice?”
Just to put out on the table, I am pro-life, pro-birth control, pro-committed relationship, pro-responsibility, pro-pre-martial (’conservative’) sex, but always with an understanding of the reality of the matter and the differences between hetero sex and deviations therefrom. I personally believe that some homosexuals are such due to genetics, while others are simply a product of any number of mental/emotional disorders that cause that behavior, among others. Clearly, homosexuality is a deviation from conventional sexual intercourse (which has the primary biological purpose of reproduction, secondary purpose being pleasure to encourage the activity to lead to reproduction), but that doesn’t make it a sin, at least not in my book. Even if it is, that sin is not my conclusion, but “God’s”.
I have (during my life, undergrad and law education and employment) personally talked to homosexuals and heard arguments from some of them that argue that sexuality is a spectrum they can move up and down, right and left on, like a dinner sampler buffet, which reflects less a genetic predisposition and more a mental/emotional imbalance. This argument royally ticks off other gays that argue that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and thus realize it undermines that argument. I have seen ads on college campuses for meetings that use the tag-line of “are you sure you’re not gay, why not experiment” as a lure to others to attend. You can’t recruit race, so why try to recruit sexual orientation if it is “set”?
Even the gay community can’t get on the same page on that one, and until they do, or science gives us a hard and fast rule, gay adoption should be off the table, or at least considered very skeptically.
Saltyron on December 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Hey you aren’t the only one.
I still do see my son on occation. He is in a loving home, and his adopted family is hetro. But he is different.
I have told my Mom, what I observed. We didn’t freak about it. Why should we? He wasn’t molested nor abused… and yet he still turned out the way he is. Different.
No one will understand unless they have walked those shoes. Don’t let people get to you.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Philwynk, if you are an Alaskan, you are more likely to be a rapist than if you are the resident of any other state. If fact, you are more than two and half times more likely to be a rapist. Should we deny adoption to all Alaskans?
Though the black population is seven percent, the black prison population is thirty two percent. Should we deny adoption to all blacks?
You are essentially arguing that rather than obeserving potential adoptors on a case by case basis, the state should play the numbers game. This would deny children a lot of families, even stable straight ones. Taken to its extreme, this would basically mean that the only people who should adopt are middle aged engineers in Irvine, CA (the safest city in the U.S.)
You can play the numbers game if you want, but you have to be consistent. Yes or no on Alaskans and Blacks?
justfinethanks on December 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM
**applause**
**whistles***
FINALLY! — someone else that understands numbers.
Thank you for your superb comments. You are doing a MUCH better job of explaining this than I could have. I am a bit short on patience.
My collie says:
It sad that the population at large has the mistaken belief that EVERYTHING in the scientific community is somehow objective. The truth is, no matter where you go in government, private enterprise, or in churches, SOME schmuck ALWAYS has an axe to grind that is NOT in the best interests of the people.
My collie says:
You just like to say that because you’re a dog.
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM
1. You’ll be surprised to note that not all liberals are the same! I know, shocking. Some of them display a surprising level of intellectual honesty when presented with accurate information. Some of them are indeed the nasty thought control type, but odd as it may seem, some do miss the daily hive-mind broadcast from time to time. As much as it would be nice (and tempting!) to view the MSM as a monolith with the goal of SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH! – not so much how it usually works. Whatever the usual ego-stroking appeal of conspiracy theory.
And no, I don’t believe the drive to doctor gay research is as strong as the drive to doctor AGW research. I gave a solid reason why. You cited a cartoon caricature of liberals. Need I remind of the large margins by which gay marriage bans have passed in a very liberal state (California) at a time when liberals are ascendant? Further, many libs really do see the Iraq War and Barack as super important. Obviously more so than gay issues, as the California votes would suggest.
2. Most behaviors are, AS I MENTIONED, complex in their origins. They are not purely genetic. Genes often provide a predisposition, but cognition, neurochemistry, and upbringing ALL play an interacting role. So OF COURSE your twin study came out without a 100% correlation. That’s entirely consistent with our understanding of human behavior. If we actually understood what made people tick to the degree you suggest we should be able to … well … let’s just say the world would be a remarkably different place. The bottom line is that scientist don’t KNOW half as much as you think they do.
3. The fact that I didn’t hear it in a newspaper tells me that newspapers don’t think that story will sell more newspapers. Odd. Look, there’s plenty of media bias out there, but it happens on a journalist by journalist level. J-school grads are indoctrinated in the same tired old class warfare crap and off they go to save the world! There isn’t a BIG GAY MEDIA AGENDA group that meets to decide on what stories to suppress.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Yes. Just not Catholic Charities here in Massachusetts because they got a visit from the judicial-fiat approved Gaystapo.
When gay privilege and the right to religious freedom collide, gay privilege wins. That’s the Gaystapo way. Intimidate until opponents cede, and once they cede, sue them until they’re broke.
You have no idea how much I would love gay marriage to be put on a referendum in Massachusetts, but sadly our blue-blooded reps were too cowardly to put it on the ballot with the neccesary 50/200 votes, despite the hundreds of thousands of signiatures gathered for it.
Not that there has been a huge swell in gay adoptions, mind. It seems most homosexual folks are just interested in court-mandated acceptance, not genuine altruism.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM
That statement is a red herring. Alaska has dang near the smallest population of any state in the union. The number of states that are smaller (like Wyoming) can be counted on the fingers of one hand. When the sampling population is so small as to be an aberration, ALL KINDS of faulty conclusions can be drawn from the statistics. The skewed behavior is built-in to to data. Anyone with significant degree of statistical expertise already knows this, and he adjusts his conclusions accordingly.
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
just actually Alaska is the number 1 reported for rape. We aren’t #1!
So you saying Alaska has the highest is baseless… especially when Alaskans are known to report everything. The women up here, may get raped, but they get even… via court.
Also most think Alaska has the highest drug problems… WRONG! In all actuality, Bigger cities have more problems then Alaska as a whole.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Right. So when statistics show that Gays (who, like Alaskans are a very small part of the population) are more likely to be self destructive, it proves that they are unfit for adoption. When it shows that Alaska has a high a rape rate, then its clearly skewed and means nothing.
I suppose you can convince yourself to believe anything when you think that all date that reaffirms your beliefs is true and all data that contradicts your beliefs is false.
justfinethanks on December 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Oh, I didn’t know we were allowed to play that game.
In that case, Gays don’t have a higher number of sexual partners, they just report a higher number of sexual partners.
BSing is fun!
justfinethanks on December 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Hey you aren’t the only one.
I still do see my son on occation. He is in a loving home, and his adopted family is hetro. But he is different.
I have told my Mom, what I observed. We didn’t freak about it. Why should we? He wasn’t molested nor abused… and yet he still turned out the way he is. Different.
No one will understand unless they have walked those shoes. Don’t let people get to you.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Is so true. Not all gays are poison. There should be tests that straights and gays should take before adoption. Love doesn’t judge. I have seen more straight people that have adopted. They should have never been able to. A few even had to give the kids up again. They had to be parents. It wasn’t that they wanted to be a parent. Had and Wanted are two different words. Thank you for you post. Unless one is in this situation, they don’t know. You are right.
sheebe on December 2, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Wrong again. Gays couples are roughly 2% of couples within the U.S. population (that statistic come from a Gay Activist web site). That is 0.02*250,000,000 (population of U.S.)*(at least 1/2 of the population are adults, a ridiculously conservative estimate) = a sampling population of 25 million people. Compare THAT figure with the entire population of Alaska (including women and children from the U.S. census bureau) = 670,053
Look again. That’s a sampling population of
25,000,000 gays in the U.S.
versus
670,053 men, women, children in Alaska
The statistics gathered on the 25 million are orders of magnitude more reliable than ANY statistics on Alaska.
I am sorry that you do not understand arithmetic. Have you considered joining the Democratic party?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Statistical equations Collie.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Your argument seems to be, “Since some uses of statistics are improper, therefore all uses of statistics are improper.” That’s wrong on its face, and I hope you know it.
One needs to be intelligent about probable causes. Homosexuality appears to be a powerful behavioral disturbance that produces self-destructive, abberant behaviors in very large numbers. It makes good sense to use it as a disqualifier. It’s a lot more powerful than state of origin as a predictor, I assure you.
However, if you’d prefer that the state use the fact of homosexuality in the applicant as a trigger to look more closely for the related, secondary behaviors than as a disqualifier of the first order, I’m on board with that.
So Jane and Francie apply to adopt, and the adoption agent, noting they’re the same gender, asks them to supply a history of their committed relationships for the past 10 years — as references. Jane produces four partners, Francie three.
Tell me, jft: do you really think it’s an abuse of statistics to examine this situation and conclude that the likelihood of Jane and Francie being a stable couple for the duration of the adoptive child’s life is… um… rather distant?
Let me emphasize that Jane and Francie, statistically speaking, are more stable than the average homosexual couple, each having had relationships that lasted longer than the statistical mean for homosexuals. But, do you really think that’s a good environment in which to place a child, that needs stability?
Oh, and yes, I’m taking into account the probability that hetero parents applying for adoption might divorce later, as well. The likelihood is a lot less.
The games pro-gays play with statistics are generally pretty rancid, and yours are no exception. You seem well educated, which means you have no excuse.
philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM
How much less? Last I heard, hetero couples were divorcing at a rate creeping closer to 50%. How much worse can gays be? How much do you think you’re gaining?
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM
They taught me in statistics class that a smaller population actually decreases the margin of error because its easier to get a representative sample.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
And as you can see here.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html
The data isn’t based on “polling” anyway, just raw, indisputable reporting rates. And even if it was skewed, two and half times more than norm just can’t be explained away by statistical aberrations. Maybe if it was ten or fifty percent more than the norm you’d have a point.
But lets focus on the statistic that apparently doesn’t challenge your worldview and you apparently have no qualms with, just to make things easier. Yes or no to black adoption?
justfinethanks on December 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM
sheebe and upinak seem to think that in order to agree with the statistical information I’m presenting, they’re being asked to stop loving their children.
That’s daft. Nobody suggests such a thing; that would be monstrous. But the fact that they love their children is hardly proof of anything other than motherly affection, which is very common and very powerful.
And because it’s so powerful, I’m not about to try to explain to either of you how inconclusive your observations have to be for anybody trying to understand the human species and the general case of homosexuality. Mothers are notoriously irrational when it comes to their children, even the ones they’ve adopted out, and observations like those you’ve offered are notoriously imprecise. That’s why we do research.
philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The 50% number has always been an urban myth. The reality is a little under 40%, and that’s over a lifetime.
A study of gay “committed” relationships in Norway, where gay marriage is legal, concluded that the average gay relationship lasts 18 months. A different study of committed gay couples in America found that of 150 couples in the survey, not a single one of them had practiced strict marital fidelity for just 5 years. The researchers, who were gay, concluded rather approvingly that monogamy does not appear to be a characteristic of gays, and also concluded that the normal gay “committed” relationship is actually more like an open marriage than like a committed, heterosexual marriage, with “cheating” rights being the norm rather than the exception.
How does that sound for an environment in which to raise kids?
philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM
In the case of Alaska, the sample group is likely above 50% of the Alaskan population, subject to the definition of rape. Assuming a high percentage of rapes are reported and a high percentage of those rapes are committed by other Alaskans you’d at least have a historical probability for estimating how many rapists were within a random sample of Alaskans. Filtering for gender and knowing repeate offenders would increase the accuracy.
That’s more correlation than cause & effect. Does moving to Alaska make someone more likely to commit rape? The stats wouldn’t tell you that.
dedalus on December 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Apples and oranges.
How long does the average hetero “relationship” last? Looking around me, I’d say 18 months sounds about right too.
Try comparing hetero and homo “marriages” – which is difficult due to the lack of stats due to longstanding
prejudices against gays.
I have witnessed the greater levels of promiscuity among gays, and have also seen immense fidelity among committed, betrothed couples.
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Maybe Alaska needs more brothels?
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Alaska is SUCH an aberration, I don’t why anyone would bring it up in the first place. There are MANY environmental factors there that influence the outcomes. The long periods of darkness up there (all by itself) would be enough to make me suicidal. I struggle with seasonal affective disorder (SAD) right here in Seattle.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM
That’s not my argument at all. I’m arguing that that you shouldn’t dismiss data that comes from pretty dependable reporting rates from the FBI because you like that data, and accept data about Homosexuals because you do.
Wait. You are OK with gays adopting so long as they look at their background first? Well, I guess we are on the same page. If a gay couple has a history of instability, absolutely they should be denied adoption. If they use homosexuality as an excuse to look more closely into their background, that’s fine. Adoption is serious business, and I don’t think that individuals can be scrutinized enough. If you just rely on numbers, however, you don’t just deny a lot of children loving homes, but you also start denying children homes of parents of certain races or geographic locations (I don’t think anyone would be allowed to adopt in St. Louis).
justfinethanks on December 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM
You make a good point, though I’ve enjoyed Seattle very much the times I’ve been there–usually during warmer seasons.
dedalus on December 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
sheebe and upinak seem to think that in order to agree with the statistical information I’m presenting, they’re being asked to stop loving their children.
That’s daft. Nobody suggests such a thing; that would be monstrous. But the fact that they love their children is hardly proof of anything other than motherly affection, which is very common and very powerful.
And because it’s so powerful, I’m not about to try to explain to either of you how inconclusive your observations have to be for anybody trying to understand the human species and the general case of homosexuality. Mothers are notoriously irrational when it comes to their children, even the ones they’ve adopted out, and observations like those you’ve offered are notoriously imprecise. That’s why we do research.
philwynk on December 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Mr. Research himself. Where did you get that I thought I am suppose to stop loving my 35 year old son? What a presumption you spew. Just because my son is gay, doesn’t mean that I feel he deserves everything. I know many gay couples. One couple 37 years, another 27 years. You would be surprised how many Gay couples have been together for years. That is beside the point. So mothers are irrational? You must mean your mother. There were times when I turned my son in. When he was shooting heroin in my home. Another when he did a hit and run. He was in his early 20’s. Told him, not to come to me if he did a wrong. He did. I told him, I will take you to the proper place. You tell the truth! He hasn’t held that against me. He doesn’t want to adopt, nor did he vote No on Prop. 8. So, need not worry Mr. Judgemental. I can see that your view on a mothers love is warped. And this Research crap is what it is. Crap! You cannot say that Scientists are always right. More have been proved wrong. Like you.
sheebe on December 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM
LOL now THAT was complete assinine and hypocritical.
First off… you can’t say anything concerning about out children. shee has been with her child since the beginning.. I have not.
Second, Mom is usually “right”, or were you not raised around your Mother?
Third… and this is directed to you solely. I have kept in contact.. but I have not seen my son in MANY years and at most times he is usually around me for not more then 2 hours. If I happen to notice he is “different” it is also due to the fact that since I am not around him all the time and I can see this observation, it is interesting isn’t it and maybe your diagnoses of “events” is false. You are not a scientist…
BTW phil… science is usually wrong. They can use a hypothosis to start a theory… but 98% of the time it does NOT become LAW! The Gay gene, the molesting turns them into “gay” people, and other examples have been used over and over but NO ONE other then GOD knows why people become Gay.
So if you want to put me down to possibly having a “gay” child.. go for it. Don’t you dare talk about shee’s son. Also.. FYI and this IS a fact. Gay children are resesive from the male’s side.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Last I heard gays were the salt of the earth but those evil Christians are categorically backwards troglodytic bigots.
Please. Society teaches that anything but abject acceptance of open homosexuality is equivalent to historic support of racism. Nobody harbors prejudice against gays except in the homosexual’s own self-centered mind.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM
To me, it all comes down to what your opinion on homosexuality is and whether or not you can tolerate it. Case in point: If a gay couple live down the street from you, take care of their house and lawn (it looks FABULOUS :), obey the laws, pay their taxes, and are otherwise good neighbors, do you really give a shit if they’re gay? Does it really affect you that much? I say “no”. In regards to gay adoption, if you have a gay couple in a committed relationship who could provide a loving home for a child, isn’t that what’s most important? Comparatively speaking, the heterosexual camp (which I belong to) is not exactly distinguishing itself in this area. Children born out-of-wedlock, dads deserting their kids, and a divorced rate over 50% is a pretty damning indictment of the “straight” community’s ability to provide a stable, loving environment for kids. Think about it.
Dagnar on December 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Catch the next porcine flight home and take a nap.
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM
NO ONE other then GOD knows why people become Gay
I guess he is also the only one who knows why some gays become straight.
Amphipolis on December 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM
And other then a troll… hmmmmm.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I guess he is also the only one who knows why some gays become straight.
Amphipolis on December 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Now this is interesting comment. Not being mean or Sarc/ I have known a few that were gay, but went straight. They said that they were molested as children. Had gone to therapy, and started to get to know themselves. That is great too. My son will not be that one. He is gay. He has been off drugs for 12 years. He doesn’t even date, has two jobs. He was born that way. I haven’t seen or heard of anyone that was born that way then went straight. If you have, I would love to read it. I research a lot of stuff. But, so much unreliable information, and especially on the net.
sheebe on December 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Here, have a fag.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Last I heard gays were the salt of the earth but those evil Christians are categorically backwards troglodytic bigots.
Please. Society teaches that anything but abject acceptance of open homosexuality is equivalent to historic support of racism. Nobody harbors prejudice against gays except in the homosexual’s own self-centered mind.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I guess he is also the only one who knows why some gays become straight.
Amphipolis on December 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Two uninformed trolls. Worthless spew. Nothing with standing.
sheebe on December 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Please sir, I’ve already been called a bigot in this topic, troll is meaningless to me.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM
BK.. your young wisdom is showing. She said she was female… keep reading the thread and stop skimming.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I feel so…heretical.
I can almost hear it through the wires – recant or we will call you another name!
Amphipolis on December 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Please ma’am, stop correcting my diction.
My apologies sheebe, I’m shifting around a lot today.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM
lol….I used to roll my own, but I’ve not smoked in decades….well, the odd cigar now & then, but no inhaling.
LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I guess that this gay just gets to read more trite remarks about my sexuality. Keep it up folks and I might vote Democrat next time.
SC.Charlie on December 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Please sir, I’ve already been called a bigot in this topic, troll is meaningless to me.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM
LOL is Mam, OK, not a troll. Bigot is a strong word. Not my type of word. This is a hard decision. I said earlier on 1st or 2nd. I don’t know what would be right. Both sides, there are many straight, gay that shouldn’t adopt. Is to hard for me to say any right answer for this topic.
sheebe on December 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Odd…three large Christian issues, two have been decided. and this one is being sifted through.
First, slavery, although not a condition of being a Christian, is was condoned, accepted. That was resolved, for so many years the South would say “The bible accepts it, so we are not out of line”. Thankfully that was resolved.
Then the women issue, women were second class citizens by bible standards, and certainly by Paul’s writings. Always wonder about Paul, dissing women and traipsing about with Erasmus…anyway women suffrage has resolved that issue.
Now we come to homosexuals, the last of the big three. Not condoned by the bible, but certainly not at the top of the list. Now slavery was accepted, and we turned that away…and homosexuals are not condoned, can we accept that, can we pick and choose what not to accept or believe?
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM
In what possible way did Paul “dis” women? Sheesh.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Just read Paul, he was not a fan of marriage, or of women.
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Just read Paul, he was not a fan of marriage, or of women.right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Err. I have. For over a decade. Not seeing it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Try this:
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I don’t think Saint Paul was actually saying you shouldn’t marry in this passage, just that he knows it will be difficult and wishes he could spare you the difficulties.
Saint Paul wrote during a time where Christians were routinely lied about and slandered, accused of drinking our children’s blood etc [by Pagans no less]. I doubt any words he had regarding one of the central things that held the early Christian community together would be condemning.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I understand…but for years, and they still do, Paul’s teaching and commentary on women has been controversial. I don’t want to, or have the time to nit pick, but very few theologians think otherwise.
The commentary now is that he did not want to have fornicating men and women. I understand the most recent “modern” commentary, of course the Catholic church felt different.
My remark is from the perspective that the church had to undergo some changes to make room for women to have a say in society. And indeed, many churches do not allow women to lead, even to have lay positions.
So the battle is won in many Christian churches, but not all.
Now on to the third leg…the Homosexual leg, do we accept or not accept?
We now accept women in leadership positions, and the bible was quite against that…
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Only you are singling these out as the “three large Christian issues.”
I doubt I would include homosexuality and I would certainly put abortion in its place.
There is a big difference in what Christians choose to believe as Christians, what they will tolerate in secular public life and what they will “accept” in either–if only politicians and ministers would acknowledge the difference and the real separation in our nation between church and state.
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Abortion was never a “the bible condones it” issue. And I don’t know anyone that seriously says that the bible says it is all right to abort (Jer 1:5).
Well, thanks for thinking that “only I have singled these out”. Many theologians and commentators have single these out, the most recent being Phyllis Tickle.
Why I single homosexuality, is because that is what this thread is about. And I chose three that revolved around a historical groups of people.
Now, women can’t be head of churches or have leadership roles according to the bible…yet they do.
So once again, do you pick and choose what you believe in? If one believes in owning a slave is he biblical, therefore right with God?
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
*Shrug*
Marriage is hard. Shocker.
If you don’t marry you can devote your life to God, a concept which He obviously approves.
However, it’s better for most to marry.
If you interpret those passages as a dis on women you’re looking for offense where none exists – not that that’s every stopped anyone from ginning stuff up from whole cloth.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM
You can’t just say, oops, you’re right, Paul does not have a high esteem for marriage or women.
This has been a controversy for hundreds of years, I didn’t just start interpreting these passages. You laid down the claim that you had never read them, I answered.
My question to you, if I owned a slave would I be biblicaly right with God?
If I put a women up as a pastor is the what the bible say to do?
Where does your authority come from?
So if a church accepts gays are they unbiblical?
So if a church accepts and embraces slaves, gives no women leadership roles in the church, and rejects gays…they are biblical.
And if the condemn slaves, puts women in a leadership position, and turns their back on gays they are not biblical?
Tough questions…easy to answer, but hard to justify with the bible.
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM
That wasn’t your argument; your argument was that modern society was knocking down those 3 prohibitions.
(Can you believe I’m having to tell you your own argument?)
You’re the first that I know of and Miss Tickle and I have never made each other’s acquaintance–I’d say that homosexuals being able to adopt is a corollary of homosexual “marriage.”
And I’m not sure we’re the better off it (with Sarah Palin being the single exception).
Even though I’m a woman myself, I’ve never cottoned to the idea of lady priests or ministers, but then I was raised in the Baptist church with lots of St. Paul.
Neither slavery (or freeing slaves) or women taking on leadership roles are called sins in the Bible, but homosexual behavior is.
Big. Difference.
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Yes.
See what I wrote above.
The Bible tells us “In Christ, there is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free.”
We are not admonished to either own slaves or to keep women subservient.
But we are told many times and in many ways in Scripture that homosexual behavior is a sin and against God’s laws.
So much for your clever humanist sophistry.
As someone said, “If homosexuality isn’t a sin, then God owes Soddom and Gommorah an apology.”
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 4:20 PM
As is divorce and remarriage.
dedalus on December 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM
So slavery is all right then…it is accepted.
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 4:28 PM
And this is what’s right Ed, both according to natural law and Scripture. And in your heart you know it’s true. Think. How many… how many children can you conceive with a man? None. Right? Do you know why you can’t conceived children with a man? Because it’s an unnatural act God never intended you to engage in. That’s why. Pretty simple, Ed. It’s not rocket science. God created Adam and Eve, not… well, you know the rest. So if we’re gonna talk about adoption — how about adopting this truth because it will please God (the same God who you are going to stand before and give an account one day) and ease your conscience (Psalm 118:8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; John 8:9). Truth is, we’ve all changed our position one time or another. I’m constantly searching for truth and sometimes I’ve had to change my position in the process. There’s no shame in doing so. Actually, when I’m corrected I’m grateful because I know I’m heading in the right direction again. Why do you think God gave you a conscience anyways? Have you ever lied, stolen, or lusted? You see, your conscience accuses you. Conscience means “with knowledge”. Every time you’ve lied or you’ve stolen you know in your heart you’ve done wrong. Conscience and God is gonna judge you on the day of judgment when you stand before God. You know that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral and you know it is a result of denying and disobeying God. You can’t argue against this. There’s no way. Especially if you identify yourself as a Christian. Homosexuality contradicts the fundamentals of the Christian faith. And no homosexual will stand up and defend you on judgment day either – they can’t. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that anybody can mediate for us with God. Each of us will give an account of himself to God. Yes, there is coming a day of judgment for each of us. So please, do not be deceived or taken advantage of. When Satan uses people to strengthen the homosexual agenda it is his means of deceiving souls. I pray that if you are going to support adoption, you adopt the bibical truth that “Love thy neighbor,” means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” sin. May the Lord bless us in our searching and our questions. Thank you.
apacalyps on December 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Nope, proved nothing of the sort — you still have 40 straight men not 40 gay men, unless you believe in your heart you could be changed to gay.
The only choice is whether to be happy and gay (pun intended) or fake it as straight.
By the way, none of us can know for certain the cause, as you seem are able to, but the people I know all say that was their only choice, and it has nothing to do with sex, but more accurately involves attraction
Yes, a right handed person can choose to be a lefty, and may even pass at it, but it will never feel right (to deepen the analogy, if something happens to a die hard righty’s hand they can pass as a lefty just as the island example above, but they are still a righty in their brain).
Unless you know for certain maybe you should tone down your adamant, and possibly mistaken beliefs about the cause.
David
LifeTrek on December 2, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Um…I’ll grant you that my math skills are not the best, but I do have a calculator and 2% of 250million is NOT 25million. That would be 10%. The correct answer from the data you provided is actually 5,000,000.
The figure you have here is wrong, but regardless of the true number of gays within that category is also included “men, women, children” spread throughout the United States in every kind of community (urban, suburban, rural, etc.).
Oh so tempting, but since this wasn’t directed at me I’ll let it pass… ;-)
JohnAGJ on December 2, 2008 at 5:25 PM
No, that’s actually prejudice. I notice that all of the links you provide lead to religious rightwing groups like NARTH that have no credible standing in the professional community. I find this amusing actually since I believe that you are the one who demanded others link stuff to rebut yours, but not from “gay activist” groups. Rather interesting take you have on all this… ;-)
JohnAGJ on December 2, 2008 at 5:29 PM
For the life of me I do not see why this wasn’t pursued as a violation of the First Amendment in Federal Court. I didn’t follow this case, but it certainly sounds like is was. Yet, this is immaterial to the point the other poster raised: we have other states, like Massachusetts, which allow gays to adopt kids and have for years. This means that this idea isn’t just a theory anymore but we should have hard data to judge the results. So, does anyone have anything credible on this? I’ve heard nothing showing a problem.
JohnAGJ on December 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM
As the Barbie doll says, “Math is hard.”
0.02 * 250,000,000 = 5,000,000
1/2 of that (adults) is 2.5 million, not 25 million as I have cited.
I think I punched the numbers into the calculator correctly, but my failing vision (something like 20/1000) was unable to correctly read off the number of zeros. My bad.
Nevertheless, by the same reasoning, statistics from a pool of 2.5 million gays nationwide are still WAY more reliable than statistics from a few hundred thousand adults in Alaska. The difference is STILL roughly an order of magnitude.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I disagree with your other comments here, but this one I can echo even if your meaning might differ from how I take it. The Catholic Church is staunchly opposed to divorce and contraception as mortal sins, yet both are widely accepted in civil society. Both are also widely accepted by a number of Christians, including many Catholics much to the chagrin of the Holy See…
JohnAGJ on December 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM
You may have a good point here, but I am not certain. I thought it best to restrict the definition of “gays wanting to adopt children” to “committed couples,” hence the 2% statistic from a Gay Activist web site. It may be that “committed couples” are actually a tiny minority within the gay community, with most gays practicing a more “promiscuous” lifestyle. I would be surprised if the gays community advocated the adoption of children for homosexuals that frequently change partners. That would be a loser in the propaganda war for sure, don’t you think?
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Indeed it is. I’m convinced that hell is spending an eternity in Algebra class with Ben Stein as the instructor droning on like he did in the movies… ;-)
Eh, I’ll let those more in the know play with the statistics but I do notice that you are giving allowance to Alaskans because of their environment that you are not allowing to gays. Every factor that would skew results for Alaskans affects gays as well: sex, age, religion, upbringing, education, living situation (urban, rural, etc.), whathaveyou. Statistics in my experience are useful but are not set in stone, like say the Law of Gravity perhaps is.
Subject gay couples to the same rigorous screening as all couples face in adoptions, heck even throw in an extra look-see if need be, and if the results come back okay I’m fine with them adopting. I’m gay and my preference is for a child to be raised by their biological mother and father, but I don’t have a problem with others stepping in if need be.
JohnAGJ on December 2, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I suppose that one would have to show a significant difference in the behavioral statistics of “committed couples” versus the general homosexual population at large before you could convince me that gays are not a “high risk” group for the adoption of children.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Except, from what I’ve seen here it is religious objections and pseudo-science from religious groups that are being offered as these other reasons. Sorry collie, but to me it is whether the couple itself can provide a good home for the child and not other people’s moral qualms.
JohnAGJ on December 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Yes — and this issue is notoriously difficult to deal with in ANY sampling population. I wish we had better tools than statistics. Any science built on them is decidedly inferior to sciences based on mathematical closed form solutions.
My collie says:
As several others have pointed out in this thread. It not ABOUT gays. It’s about the children — and what is best for them.
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 6:10 PM
We have to agree to disagree on this one. I accept the moral arguments because I believe in the Bible. Christians have always been a minority though, and I would not be such a fascist that I insist that our minority view be imposed on others by force. It is our tradition of loving our neighbor, whoever he or she might be, that prevents us from doing so. Of course, we have a constituency that contains some aggressive individuals that might think otherwise, but as John put it in 1st John 2:9, those individuals remain in darkness.
My collie says:
It would appear that most of the fascism has been emanating from certain segments of the gay community of late — with the threats to burn churches, and what not.
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 6:22 PM
This is a bit trickier–some say that Scripture and Jesus condemn divorce and say say not…in all cases.
Many Christians who take the former view consider remarriage after divorce to be sinful.
(And I say this as a divorced and remarried person myself.)
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Uh, no.
That’s not what I said, although you could have found some who justified slavery on Biblical grounds as “God’s will” even 50 years ago, especially in the South.
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Nope–that was me. Don’t blame that on phil.
Jenfidel on December 2, 2008 at 7:09 PM
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.
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.
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
Jesus appears to be clear in his view on divorce in Mark 10: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” There isn’t a verse where he speaks as directly about homosexuals.
There are plenty of other places in the Bible where homosexual behavior is condemned. But adulterers are listed along with fornicators and homosexuals as those who won’t share eternal life with God.
dedalus on December 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I find your interpretations woefully lacking in crucial context. Paul knew a simple truth – an unmarried man has more time to spend on getting to know his creator. If you’d like to call that a dis on women or marriage you’re being intellectually dishonest.
I can’t even begin to dissect the rat’s nest of faulty assumptions inherent in your questions, so I won’t try. They’re of the obvious “gotcha” variety anyway since you pose answers to them in your own post that are patently dishonest.
Gotta love it when people who’ve barely cracked a Bible try to lecture people on how immoral the Bible is without A) any clue of what they’re talking about and B) any rational justification for a universally applicable moral code of their own.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 2, 2008 at 7:44 PM
So tell me about Alaskan Gays.
I think CC is correct concerning some items, as well as you are.
Do you know how many Gays are actually in this State? Would Bi-Sexuals be put into that mix? Because if that were so, you would be rocked to your core if you really knew how many there were up here.
upinak on December 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I must concur with you. right2bright appears to have a very puzzling and skewed perspective on Biblical teachings regarding women. (There seems to be a root of bitterness in right2bright’s posts that I wouldn’t dare to speculate about.)
I’ve read the Bible (the whole thing) cover to cover — several times. My radar doesn’t alert me to any of the assertions that righnt2bright has made. If anything, Christianity has been THE most liberating champion for women, and simultaneously THE greatest advocate of monogamous holy matrimony of any religious ideology that I am aware of. Jesus (and later, Paul) raised the status of women to heretofore untold heights. Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, ignoring cultural taboos of the day. Women followed Him around, everywhere He went — to the extent that He was criticized for “hanging out” with prostitutes. A little girl was the first person that he raised from the dead. Women were the first to discover that He had arose from the dead. At least some of the 1st century churches were financed by wealthy women — as evidenced by their names that were left in the mosaic floors (see recent the archaeological discoveries in Israel). Priests were allowed to marry for roughly the first 1000 years of the church’s existence. I could go on and on, ad nauseum.
My collie says:
That’s right. From my reading of the Bible, it is in no way misogynist or anti-marriage.
Of course, does that mean that Christian women were never discriminated against, or treated unfairly by Christian men? Nope — but you can NOT lay those offenses at the feet of Paul or Jesus. Do unfair practices persist in the Christian faith. Yup. Both Catholics and Protestants (notably, the Southern Baptist convention) relegate women to a status that is decidedly different and arguably inferior to men. Again, can you lay that at the feet of Jesus or Paul. Nope. Happily, there ARE some Christian sects that treat women virtually the SAME as men — most notably (at least, in my book) the Wesleyan and Pentecostal churches.
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 8:30 PM
philwynk:
“The survey is regarded as one of the most scientifically rigorous studies of American sexual behavior to date, although the number of gays in the survey was smaller than they would have liked.”
Hardly! Just for starters, a disclaimer on sample size is the sine qua non of red flags. Fair use prohibits pasting the entire, blistering, peer review R.T. Michael et al in the New England Journal of Medicine, but here’s a taste:
I note that no one here has actually ante’d up stat numero uno on gay couples in long term committed relationships. There’s no defensible leap from small surveys and indiscriminate aggregates to the kind of assertions you and others have been been making all through this thread. So spare us the pseudo-science and pseudo-psyche self-righteousness that couldn’t pass a professional giggle test.
BKennedy:
“Gay adoption intrinsically robs an orphan of one of a mother or father. Period.”
Gay adoption gives an orphan who has been robbed of both mother and father, two parents. Period. Given studies which suggest that children appear to be better off when their parents stay married despite substantive reasons for divorce, it even seems reasonable to assume that a family with two same sex parents would actually be better for kids than a single parent of any sex.
JM Hanes on December 2, 2008 at 8:35 PM
philwynk:
“Scientists KNOW that homosexuality is not caused by genes. This is simply beyond dispute.,,,Genetic causes are relatively easy to rule out.”
Not so, no, and not so. Apparently you are as unfamiliar with genetics as you are with actual, versus presumed, adoption processing.
Almost forgot Jeffrey Satinover, who is like the anti-gay version of 9/11 truthers. In the universe according to Satinover, a Vast GLBT Conspiracy subverted the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Supreme Court. Doctored data in hand, they forced the APA to expunge homosexuality from the DSM, contra Satinover’s own conviction that homosexuality is a mental disorder — based on his own doctorly data of course. He contends that homosexuality would spontaneously disappear with age if we’d just quit promoting it. Even the folks who are most opposed to gay adoption here don’t seem to be swallowing that theory!
I see you proferred some Norwegian stats on couples while I was off composing the post above. Considering the quality of your references so far, I’d say a look at samples and methodology would be the first order of business. In the meantime, the folks arguing statistical probabilities so fiercely with regard to gay adoption might want to check out the slippery slope they’re perched on.
JM Hanes on December 2, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I think a couple of years at Fuller Seminary is more then just cracking a book.
I never said the book was immoral, those are your words. If you think the words are immoral that is your perception.
Are you saying that Slavery was not accepted in the NT?
You see, you argued about what you think I know or don’t know, yet you don’t argue the points.
The bible clearly states their support for slavery, they clearly support not having women in any church leadership roles, and they clearly do not support homosexual behavior.
So now I ask you again:
If you support women in leadership roles in church, then why not support homosexuals in church?
These are not just “gotcha” questions, these are theological dilemmas that the church is faced with.
If you pick and choose what verses to follow, who picks and chooses?
The question is always with the church, from Gregory I, through the Great Schism, then the Great Reformation…where does the authority come from?
The Church, the Pope, the Priest/Pastor, the Bible (as the reformation begsn)and the introduction of Sola Scriptura, Scriptura Sola, and currently where Sola Scriptura is now being picked apart…you can’t have slaves, women have rights, divorce is accepted, etc. And now how do all the church families begin to live together, how do the four Abrahamic religions meld?
These are questions you may not be concerned with, but the church body right now (about every 500 years a change in church policy has developed, and it has been about 500 years), is wrestling with.
Do you feel it is right to have women in a church leadership role or any leadership role?…that could be a “gotcha”, because if you say no, then you are out of step with society, but if you say yes you are out of step with scripture.
These are not just gotcha questions, but real deal, heart of the bible, where do you go for authority questions.
If the last word is scripture, then you are thrown back to the days of slaves…think about these things, then go out and pick up the book “The Great Emergence”, maybe the best lay persons book that lays out briefly but accurately the history and then looks towards the future.
There are other books, but this is only a couple of hundred pages of fairly easy reading, from a “untrained scholar”.
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 10:07 PM
First of all, just because I interpret scripture in tune to the majority of scholars, and it does not fit your belief, don’t be fooled into thinking anything more then what the bible says.
So here is my challenge…show me where women can lead a church. And show me historically, before the present day, that women were allowed priesthood, pastorial positions. Even the present day Baptists keep women out of the pulpit, Wisconsin Synod of Lutherans prohibit women in pulpits…do you think they just made that up?
Here are the verses:
1 Timothy 2:12-14
Isaiah 3:12
1 Timothy 3:1-5
Titus 1:5-6
If you don’t like what the bible says, don’t blame me…now show me where the bible supports women to lead men.
Once again, I am doing this to make you think about what you are really believing (you say the bible holds women up, and in some areas it does, but not as a church leader). It was easy 200 years ago under the Sola Scriptura, Scriptura Sola…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
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
I stated the scripture (and there are more) that states a women cannot lead in a church, and you offer none to counter, so allow me.
This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status). Some religious conservatives believe that this equality refers only to salvation and not to status.
Let me just add a personal note, out of the past 15 years of church (not counting the 40 before), eleven of those were with a women pastor…a great pastor whom I dearly love and respect for her spiritual wisdom and intelligence.
And even she acknowledged the difficulty with balancing the bible with the act of leading a church.
And I might add, most every church I started or was involved with had women as leaders somewhere in the church.
So your darts have sorely missed the target, and you are more interested in attacking the person, then understanding the scriptural challenge.
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Whoa. Slow your Mustang down, Sally. If my comments came across as an attack, I apologize. I said that I was puzzled, not angry or offended. Nor did I intend for my comments to be “darts”. My radar IS indicating some bitterness and hostility (loud and clear) in your responses, however. Again, I am sorry if you find me (or my dog) offensive.
I come from the Wesleyan tradition. Women have always possessed leadership privileges in the churches that I grew up in. I like it that way, and I see nothing wrong with it. Furthermore, I don’t think scripture necessarily prohibits that tradition. In my mind, 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.
For the time being, I am attending a non-denominational evangelical church (along with my wife). For all practical purposes, they follow the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention. Woman are not allowed to lead. I have registered my feelings on this matter with the church leadership. They (predictably) choose to ignore me. I don’t press the issue. My wife and I remain in fellowship with that group for other reasons (cultural, ethnic) — even though neither I, nor my wife necessarily agree with their position on that particular issue. We respect their right to operate the church the way they see fit. They are, after all, in the leadership positions.
As for scripture, it is mixture of historical events, metaphors, commandments from God, and the cultural traditions of men. I do not dispute the existence of any of the Bible verses that you have cited. As for your challenge, the only instances that I can think of (in the Bible itself) where a woman has taken on a leadership role, is in the Old Testament. There have also been PLENTY of instances since the 1st century where women have taken on leadership roles, they are just not listed in the Bible (for obvious reasons).
Secondly, I do not see tolerance of something as quite the same thing as support for that thing or approval of that thing. There are many things about modern American society that I don’t like, but I tolerate. That doesn’t neccessarily mean that I approve of them, or that I support them — but may simply mean that my avenues of protest/ dissent are limited or restricted. For example, I don’t like the use of federal tax dollars to support Planned Parenthood, but I would never consider killing any of the medical personnel at an abortion clinic (as some people already have). Is that fickle on my part?
For example, Jesus cites this difference between God’s historical intent and His tolerance for the wrong-headed traditions of men when He spoke on the issue of divorce. He points out that Moses permitted God’s people to do things that God Himself was not the author of (or in favor of). The reason cited for God’s tolerance is man’s hard-headedness.
CyberCipher on December 2, 2008 at 11:32 PM
That was my whole point of bringing up Sola Scriptura, Scriptura Sola.
For hundreds of years it was just that, Scriptures only, only the Scriptures…that is what the reformation and Luther specifically built the reformation upon.
It is now beginning to change, we are taking the scriptures, the written word, and saying it is “culture”…I am not saying it is wrong, I am stating a fact, the authority is no longer exclusively the scripture, but it is now how the scripture is interpreted visa vis the “culture”.
This is a major change in the history of churches…prior to that change was getting rid of slavery, which was perfectly acceptable to Jesus…but again we interpreted that as culture.
Now we are faced with the gay issue, does the church bend to culture? Or does the church take a stand and revert back to Sola Scriptura…I am only stating what the church has to face as far as where does the authority come from…scripture, culture, melding the two, and who makes that decision, who is the authority?
You are faced with that in your church and the lack of women in leadership role.
I am not taking sides, I am stating what is happening right now in the church between the 4 Abrahamic religious groups.
Where, in 20 years, will the church authority come from? The change has started…
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »