NationStates Jolt Archive

I was rather bored by the recent discussion about banning gay pride parades, so I decided to throw a bit of wood into the fire.

Yes. Discussion over.

Yes. Why shouldn't they be?

We are allowed to adopt where I live, so your question is quite moot.

Yes. No reason for them not to.

Certainly.

We are allowed to adopt where I live, so your question is quite moot.

They are not allowed to adopt in most countries, so it's very valid.

Yes. No justification required on my part.

I knew two people in highschool with gay parents. Neither were adopted, but the point is the same. Henry lived with his dad and his dad's BF. He's fine and they were cool. My girlfriend, Jacky, lived with her mom and her mom's GF and everything was good there, too. I don't see why it's a problem.

They are not allowed to adopt in most countries, so it's very valid.

You'll find that Fass doesn't much care about the world outside of Sweden.

You'll find that Fass doesn't much care about the world outside of Sweden.

ROFL

Just because they are gay doesn't mean they are bad parents.

Yes, i think they should be afforded the same rights heterosexual couples are.

They are not allowed to adopt in most countries, so it's very valid.

We are, however, in many. And in Europe, it's spreading. (http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=942186) :)

We are allowed to adopt where I live, so your question is quite moot.

So someone could argue that it should be made illegal. The question is still quite valid.

For myself I see nothing wrong with allowing it.

Should heterosexual couples be allowed to breed? :rolleyes: Next stupid question please....

Of course they should be allowed. Their humans too. And it will help more orphans find homes.

Yes. All the arguments to the contrary I've ever seen were bullshit; what other position could one rationally hold?

You'll find that Fass doesn't much care about the world outside of Sweden.

While the country that lies between Canada and Mexico is "outside of Sweden," it's hardly the world.

So someone could argue that it should be made illegal.

That's not the question asked.

We are, however, in many. And in Europe, it's spreading. (http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=942186) :)

psst. don't use the word "spreading"; makes it sound like a disease.

While the country that lies between Canada and Mexico is "outside of Sweden," it's hardly the world.
Ah, Fass, you and your delusions. :p

While the country that lies between Canada and Mexico is "outside of Sweden," it's hardly the world.

Well, you've expressed a distinct lack of caring about places like Poland, which is nowhere between Canada and Mexico on my most up-to-date globe. Should I have included "most of the" in my statement?

If we can allow crack whores, pimps, poor people, drug addicts, and all other forms of society adopt why not gays? I think growing up with no food and in the ghetto is alot worse than growing up with 2 dads or 2 moms.

Wouldn't it screw up the kid and have them ridiculed throughout their entire life? Eh... I'm kind of in between on this one.

psst. don't use the word "spreading"; makes it sound like a disease.

Sometimes, I wish it were. Then, we could infect people with the gay, and the world would be a better place. Alas, no such luck...

That's not the question asked.

The question is asking if gay couples should be able to adopt. In many places its illegal so you can debate if the law should be changed so that it is legalized. If it is already legal then you can argue the opposite. I think it relevant.

If we can allow crack whores, pimps, poor people, drug addicts, and all other forms of society adopt why not gays? I think growing up with no food and in the ghetto is alot worse than growing up with 2 dads or 2 moms.

Not really.

Growing up in "da hood" can land you a major record contract. It's the cool thing to do, to say "To hell with school". ;)

Of course they should be able to adopt.

Well, you've expressed a distinct lack of caring about places like Poland, which is nowhere between Canada and Mexico on my most up-to-date globe. Should I have included "most of the" in my statement?

Poland and the US make not "most of the world," either. For instance, I quite care about the situation on the Faroe Islands. When will they finally sever their dependency on Denmark?

Wouldn't it screw up the kid and have them ridiculed throughout their entire life? Eh... I'm kind of in between on this one.
Didn't happen to my friend or my girlfriend. I'm sure some kids may have said mean things, but both of them got along pretty well at school.

Well, you've expressed a distinct lack of caring about places like Poland, which is nowhere between Canada and Mexico on my most up-to-date globe. Should I have included "most of the" in my statement?

Poland and the US make not "most of the world," either. For instance, I quite care about the situation on the Faroe Islands. When will they finally sever their dependency on Denmark?

I think you two should adopt a child together...

I think they should. However, the question (in the US, at least) should be left up to each state to decide individually and no federal law should be passed to allow/disallow it.

Wouldn't it screw up the kid and have them ridiculed throughout their entire life?

They used to say that about mixed-race children, and the ridicule died down quickly.

I think you two should adopt a child together...

I'll have you know Sdaeriji would make an excellent parent, and quite the catch for marriage, too.

Read this. Understand it. Learn from it (http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html)

So I voted yes.

They used to say that about mixed-race children, and the ridicule died down quickly.
That's true. But...

What happens in elementary school when the children are asked to make Mother's Day/Father's Day cards or something of that nature? Wouldn't that have a detremental effect on the child?

I posted a link n my previous post on the matter. Follow the instruction on the link. The answer, by the way, to your question, is no.

No. Because its my opinion.

That's true. But...

What happens in elementary school when the children are asked to make Mother's Day/Father's Day cards or something of that nature? Wouldn't that have a detremental effect on the child?

They could be asked to make a "Parent card" or simply "Daddy Fass" cards, and then on the other day they could make "Daddy Sdaeriji" cards. Or we could have one "Parent day." Or, you know, we could give children a little bit of credit and realise they're a lot more resilient than that, and that a small explanation goes a long way. How do you think single parent children cope?

No. Because its my opinion.
The reasoning behind said opinion being what?

No. Because its my opinion.

Okay. What is that opinion?

That's true. But...

What happens in elementary school when the children are asked to make Mother's Day/Father's Day cards or something of that nature? Wouldn't that have a detremental effect on the child?

I suppose they'll have to do two cards on father's day and take a day off on mother's day (if their parents are male)

What happens in elementary school when the children are asked to make Mother's Day/Father's Day cards or something of that nature? Wouldn't that have a detremental effect on the child?

I wonder if it would be just as detremental for those children with an absent or dead parent.

They could be asked to make a "Parent card" or simply "Daddy Fass" cards, and then on the other day they could make "Daddy Sdaeriji" cards. Or we could have one "Parent day." Or, you know, we could give children a little bit of credit and realise they're a lot more resilient than that, and that a small explanation goes a long way.
Parent Day? Great. Let's just make it illegal to call it a Christmas Tree as well. Holiday Tree is such a great name. It really celebrates the birth of Christ! Oh wait...

Parent Day would completely violate the tradition.

Parent Day? Great. Let's just make it illegal to call it a Christmas Tree as well. Holiday Tree is such a great name. It really celebrates the birth of Christ! Oh wait...

You were the one who assumed they would somehow be injured by having two days. Is your tradition worth more than the children? Why won't you think of the children!?!

Parent Day would completely violate the tradition.

Some traditions need to be violated.

The reasoning behind said opinion being what?

I have a gut instinct that it's not right.

Not really "reasoning," but then few opinions are based on pure reason.

I was rather bored by the recent discussion about banning gay pride parades, so I decided to throw a bit of wood into the fire.
Yes, you shouldn't restrict someones adoption rights over sexuality.

I have a gut instinct that it's not right.

Well, who can argue with such truthiness? :rolleyes:

Parent Day would completely violate the tradition.
"To defy the laws of tradition
Is a crusade only of the brave."

I have a gut instinct that it's not right.

Not really "reasoning," but then few opinions are based on pure reason.

Eh? There's no difference between a man and a woman and a man and man/woman and a woman. Well, they can't have children via sex, but that's about it...

Eh? There's no difference between a man and a woman and a man and man/woman and a woman. Well, they can't have children via sex, but that's about it...


Of course there's a difference. That's why you differentiate by specifying "man" or "woman." ;)

Speaking as a Christan junkie I say NO! Demon go to hell! But speaking as an all american athiest. YES! They didn't do anything for them not to be able to. You don't see a gay couples kids messed up as much as a strait couples. Case closed. Goverments and laws shouldn't be ruled by riligoin.

Speaking as a Christan junkie I say NO! Demon go to hell! But speaking as an all american athiest. YES! They didn't do anything for them not to be able to. You don't see a gay couples kids messed up as much as a strait couples. Case closed. Goverments and laws shouldn't be ruled by riligoin.

Gays are Demons? Wait....what? You're a Christian and an atheist? Could you be more specific and choose one or the other?

Speaking as a Christan junkie I say NO! Demon go to hell! But speaking as an all american athiest. YES!

I want to smoke some of yours please... :D

Of course there's a difference. That's why you differentiate by specifying "man" or "woman." ;)

In marriage there isn't. Please, stop splitting hairs. My post was towards the institute of marriage and joining together, not literal differences. There is no difference between two heterosexuals marrying and two homosexuals.

Gays are Demons?

In the sack. :)

I think they should. However, the question (in the US, at least) should be left up to each state to decide individually and no federal law should be passed to allow/disallow it.
Well, I say that anyone should be llowed to adopt. As a matter of fact it's protected in the constition that the goverment cant be biased based sex, race, riligion...you get the idea right? So I just bang my head into the wall:headbang: at the goverments complete disregard for it. Thats why bush needs to be removed from power:sniper:

Some traditions need to be violated.
With hand cuffs and leather!

I want to smoke some of yours please... :D
I should of specified: I am an athiest. I meant to say that.

With hand cuffs and leather!

And sparkly gyrating dildos the girth of Oprah's thighs, pre-weight loss.

Wouldn't it screw up the kid and have them ridiculed throughout their entire life? Eh... I'm kind of in between on this one.

Only if you expose them to your kind of ignorance...:headbang:

In marriage there isn't. Please, stop splitting hairs. My post was towards the institute of marriage and joining together, not literal differences. There is no difference between two heterosexuals marrying and two homosexuals.

Your opinion and mine are not in agreement.

I want to smoke some of yours please... :D
Wait your turn. I'm getting reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly high...

Your opinion and mine are not in agreement.

Your opinion is, as you've said yourself, just a gut feeling. It would also appear to have no evidence to back it up. What evidence do you have that homosexuals adopting would be wrong in some way?

I should of specified: I am an athiest. I meant to say that.

Does this mean "no smoke"? :(

Here these guys sing. Their not gay but they still rock err rap...I forget to hard to tell...http://media.putfile.com/Halo--CE--Tribute1

Does this mean "no smoke"? :(
No...lots of smoke indeed...

I have a gut instinct that it's not right..

Really? And what does your 'gut instinct" tell you about heterosexuals giving birth to children only to neglect, abuse, rape and/or kill them?


Not really "reasoning," but then few opinions are based on pure reason.

Thats the problem:rolleyes: Its too much toruble for some tiny brains to strain an original thought, or formulate an opinion based on facts, so lets just go with what we feel. :upyours:

Your opinion is, as you've said yourself, just a gut feeling. It would also appear to have no evidence to back it up. What evidence do you have that homosexuals adopting would be wrong in some way?

If by evidence you mean statistics, none. Sorry, I'm not gonna get into a debate just cuz you can't handle differing opinions. ;)

If by evidence you mean statistics, none. Sorry, I'm not gonna get into a debate just cuz you can't handle differing opinions. ;)

I can handle differing opinions. Yours just doesn't seem to have any sort of rationale behind it.

No...lots of smoke indeed...

hear, hear! I say this comment (almost) deserves a GOLD.

Any one like the song? It's the shiznat!

I can handle differing opinions. Yours just doesn't seem to have any sort of rationale behind it.

I haven't made an argument to support my opinion, no. I didn't feel the need to, and I'm not the only one on this thread who is the same.

Callixtina: I appreciate you calling my brain tiny, but it's in fact the same size as most other peoples.

I haven't made an argument to support my opinion, no. I didn't feel the need to, and I'm not the only one on this thread who is the same.

Callixtina: I appreciate you calling my brain tiny, but it's in fact the same size as most other peoples.

Very well. A rather saddening opinion when I thought you were so reasonable in other threads, but it is your opinion, after all. Still...a dissapointment...

I haven't made an argument to support my opinion, no. I didn't feel the need to, and I'm not the only one on this thread who is the same.

I suppose we're all curious to know if there is an unspoken reason behind your "no" and whether you do really vote on such matters without any rationale (i.e. purely on gut instinct)?

Not really "reasoning," but then few opinions are based on pure reason.
I stand by Santa Barara and this statement. We both seem to get it: we're not some brainiacs on the "nerd patrol". We're not members of the Factinista. We go straight from the gut. Right? That's where the truth lies; in the gut! Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you do in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up! That's not true!". That's because you looked it up in a book. Next time look it up in your gut! I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works! I always speak from the gut and tell the truth unfiltered by rational argument. I call wherever I'm staying the "No Fact Zone". Fox News: I own a copyright on that title...

:p

http://www.filmportal.com/node/30/play

Next time look it up in your gut! I did.

and you found what?.... er... wait.... maybe I don't want to know.... :D

I suppose we're all curious to know if there is an unspoken reason behind your "no" and whether you do really vote on such matters without any rationale (i.e. purely on gut instinct)?

Curiosity, hmm?

Well, this isn't about voting on such matters. This is just a thread about opinion.

Secondly, yes my reasons are unspoken. I haven't listed them nor will I, because they will simply never be good enough for others. I know what futility is, it's arguing on a forum against the loud drone of a majority. It's like how I could offer rational arguments that tear the shit out of the anti-smoking, anti-tobacco, tobacco criminalization crowd - but they will never change their opinion. So why bother? A lot of wasted energy is what it is. And I admit that my opinion doesn't really change just cuz someone argued against it on an online forum either.

And when it comes to "shoulds", especially political shoulds, there is no objective right nor objective wrong. People assume there is, however, and they usually asume they are in the objective right. Therefore they look for any justification to help support their rightness, usually on this forum by attacking what they perceive as the objectively wrong. But there is no objectivity in political "shoulds," and so it's all just vanity.

So I'd rather not argue about it and just offer my opinion.

Yes anyone should be allowed to adopt a child as long as they can give it a good home.

Sexual choice is a private matter between two (or more) persons and should have no berring on adoption, as its only shunned by parts christianity making it a religious fight and not the state's concern.

It's like how I could offer rational arguments that tear the shit out of the anti-smoking, anti-tobacco, tobacco criminalization crowd - but they will never change their opinion. So why bother? A lot of wasted energy is what it is. And I admit that my opinion doesn't really change just cuz someone argued against it on an online forum either.

I would disagree with you. I think people's opinions CAN be changed by forums like these, because opinion forming is usually a result of a dialogue or even a monologue. The different views expressed in a forum may help some less informed to change opinion. When I say "less informed", I mean someone who hasn't heard both pro and against arguments.

And when it comes to "shoulds", especially political shoulds, there is no objective right nor objective wrong. People assume there is, however, and they usually asume they are in the objective right. Therefore they look for any justification to help support their rightness, usually on this forum by attacking what they perceive as the objectively wrong. But there is no objectivity in political "shoulds," and so it's all just vanity.

First: Do you feel you have not heard any good reasons why gays parents should be able to adopt?

Second: Are you willing to listen, without prejudice?

So I'd rather not argue about it and just offer my opinion.

There is arguing and there is bickering.

OK, I'll take a stab at it.

I think that people are looking at this the wrong way. The question should be what's best for the kid, not what's fair for the parents. Speaking as a parent, fairness is a very distant second to the kids' welfare.

Given the way things are here (Texas, USA) I'd say gays shouldnt adopt - chances are they'd be doing the kid no favors. They might still compare well to foster care, orphanage or drug addicted single moms, so I'd oppose a law prohibiting gay adoption, even here - but considering that *I'm* a relative liberal locally, this is not the place for it.

My position is yes in 3 points.

1. Personal experience. A young girl who rode at the same farm as me had been adopted my two gay parents. She was, unlike the rest of the spoiled masses, made to work for what she wanted, not just handed it. These two people were some of the nicest, responsible, and caring parents I have ever seen, gay or straight.

2. Genetics control gender, not upbringing. If your argument against gay adoption is that they will have gay children, you should look at the studies that say similar sexual orientation is far more common seperated identical twins than in faturnal twins raised together. After all, don't staright parents always raise straight children?

3. Even if gay parents raised gay children, so what? As long as they are good people, what does it matter?

I suppose we're all curious to know if there is an unspoken reason behind your "no" and whether you do really vote on such matters without any rationale (i.e. purely on gut instinct)?
Don't argue with truthiness!

I have a gut instinct that it's not right.

Not really "reasoning," but then few opinions are based on pure reason.

Uh, excuse me. 23 year old son, straight, in the US Air Force, damned proud of him. He knows about me. Has promised to come to any type of civil union or marriage ceremony in his uniform that I have. I told him the Air Force might frown on that, and he said, "Fuck 'em, you're my dad."

You have no experience or perspective on parenting, you have no clue who is qualified to parent and who isn't.

I think all people of good character, regardless of sexuality should be able to adopt a child.

Think of all the orphans that are absolutely dying for a family.

Yes they should. Definatly.

As long as a couple is capable of raising kids, the couples' sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

I voted not sure. But after reading through this, I think I should have voted yes after all. I just had this GUT feeling...which is just when you doubt things by lack of knowledge. So, Santa Barbara, don't act like no-one here might be able to teach you something. But of course, when you're into the Bible or take some other shait literally, why do I argue with you:D

O and Fass, you made me curious with your statements about this: do you believe in the male-female-role distinction in a gay relation? If so, which "heterosexual" would you be?

Well I'm gay and I would say I'm a quite sensible man. Why shouldn't I be able to raise a child?

I don't see why not - they have every right to do so, after all, it doesn't neccessarily mean that the adopted child will end up to be gay.

Hmm... Not surprising that most would say yes to this question. I personally am against gay parenthood, the reason being that chidren have differing relationships between their mothers and fathers. I am not saying that there is something wrong with gay parents, just that they may not be fully qualified for the task. I think it might be better if heterosexual couples were given higher priority for adopting a child.

Hmm... Not surprising that most would say yes to this question. I personally am against gay parenthood, the reason being that chidren have differing relationships between their mothers and fathers. I am not saying that there is something wrong with gay parents, just that they may not be fully qualified for the task. I think it might be better if heterosexual couples were given higher priority for adopting a child.

In a perfect world, the orphanges would be empty because there would be lots of loving couples that take care of the children. But this isn't a perfect world. Most heterosexual couples procreate on their own and don't feel the need to adopt. As such, thousands upon thousands of children are living in misery without any parents.

Studies have shown time and again that children raised in same-sex relationships fare no better or worse than any other children. If the alternatives are two loving parents or life in loneliness and destitude, which would you choose, hmm?

O and Fass, you made me curious with your statements about this: do you believe in the male-female-role distinction in a gay relation?

There is no such thing. In gay relationships both are men (or women, if lesbians).

If so, which "heterosexual" would you be?

What?

We haven't got enough 'normal' couples for our needs, wot?

Might as well fill the gap with some 'queer' couples.

Sure. Let them suffer with children like the rest of us.

I am not saying that there is something wrong with gay parents, just that they may not be fully qualified for the task. I think it might be better if heterosexual couples were given higher priority for adopting a child.

Jayu, is this formula always correct?

Dad + Mum = Happy and successful child.

We all know too well that the answer is no, as unfortunate as this may be. Fact is there are single parents out there doing a much better job than couples in educating their children. Sometimes, there are grandparents doing a better than parents. There are even cases where children are better off in an orphanage, than with their biological parents (cases of child abuse, violence, etc).

Parenthood must be judged on how people can provide love, education, health and a home for their children. To give priority to heterosexual couples, based on the assumption that they are "more qualified", ignores the process of judging the REAL qualities that make a good parent, like the ability to show affection towards a child, impose discipline when necessary (and how this is done), offer economic stability, etc.

Is it right to give priority of adoption to a heterosexual couple, if they are judged beyond doubt to be less capable of raising a child, than a gay couple also wanting to adopt?

Heterosexual couples always had the exclusivity of adopting, but people do tend to prefer to breed their own children, rather than taking a child from an orphanage. Millions of children all over the world wait all their childhood to see one dream come true; the day that someone will announce to them that their new parents are coming to take them home. They never come. When these children finally reach adulthood, some feel they have been abandoned three times: 1st. by their biological parents, 2nd. by the couple that never turned up and 3rd. by the state, who eventually is forced to cut all financial support. These young adults are thrown out in the world without a family to work as a "safety net" should something go wrong. In these circumstances, loosing a job will always mean homelessness. Falling into drug addiction means "nobody cares".

Can anyone argue this is better than giving this child a chance of having a family through a gay couple? Remember that gay couples usually have their own families, so a child doesn't only get parents but quite possibly grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc.

That's true. But...

What happens in elementary school when the children are asked to make Mother's Day/Father's Day cards or something of that nature? Wouldn't that have a detremental effect on the child?
Why should it? And what about children being reared in single-parent homes? Or by their grandparents? Or by adoptive parents?

The only thing that is "detremental" to children is pretending that families can only come in one shape.

Hmm... Not surprising that most would say yes to this question. I personally am against gay parenthood, the reason being that chidren have differing relationships between their mothers and fathers.

Children have differing relationships with their parents. Some children are close to their mother, others to their father. Some love both, some neither.

Human beings are individuals, and different individuals form different relationships. It is utterly assinine to try to reduce human relationships to simple male-female dichotomies.


I am not saying that there is something wrong with gay parents, just that they may not be fully qualified for the task. I think it might be better if heterosexual couples were given higher priority for adopting a child.
If you think gay couples are "less qualified," then you are indeed saying that there is something wrong with gay couples. If you believe heterosexuals should be given preferential treatment, you are indeed saying that gays deserve to be discriminated against FOR BEING GAY.

Parent Day? Great. Let's just make it illegal to call it a Christmas Tree as well. Holiday Tree is such a great name. It really celebrates the birth of Christ! Oh wait...

Parent Day would completely violate the tradition.
What "tradition" is that?

O and Fass, you made me curious with your statements about this: do you believe in the male-female-role distinction in a gay relation?
I know you weren't asking me, but for the record I am in a heterosexual relationships and I don't believe in the male-female role distinction, nor would I remotely consider having children with anybody who did.

I guess that means my kids would automatically grow up to be axe murderers or (even worse!!!) homosexuals. Quick, somebody pass a law forbidding me to adopt!

They should be allowed to adopt Adults.

You'll find that Fass doesn't much care about the world outside of Sweden.

You'll find that most Americans don't care much about the world outside the U.S., either. So we're even?

Of course gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Wtf?

You'll find that most Americans don't care much about the world outside the U.S., either. So we're even?

Of course gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Wtf?
WTF!

They should be allowed to adopt Adults.
There certainly seem to be a few "grown ups" around this thread who could do with a bit more parenting. :)

We're allowed to adop in Canada.

We're also able to choose NOT to adopt. Which is what I am doing. I'll have my hands full babysitting the nephews and nieces when my sister get kids. I don't really think I need little brats of my own :p Kids are fun to have over for a weekend. You're glad to have them when they come in, and equally glad to see them going away after a day or two ;)

Hmm... Not surprising that most would say yes to this question. I personally am against gay parenthood, the reason being that chidren have differing relationships between their mothers and fathers. I am not saying that there is something wrong with gay parents, just that they may not be fully qualified for the task. I think it might be better if heterosexual couples were given higher priority for adopting a child.
Gay parents can certainly be qualified for the job.

Some children are raised only by their mother or father. They turn out all right. If you're talking about the possible lack of role models of the differing sex from the same-sex parents, it's a moot concern. Two gay men will have sisters, female friends, there will be two grandmothers, etc. Two lesbians will have male friends around, brothers, there will be grandfathers, etc. There is also traditionally a godfather and a godmother for the child. No lack of either sex around for the child to see.

Gay people don't live in a vacuum, you know.

They should be allowed to adopt Adults.
What the spoon do you mean by that?

Gay parents can certainly be qualified for the job.

Some children are raised only by their mother or father. They turn out all right. If you're talking about the possible lack of role models of the differing sex from the same-sex parents, it's a moot concern. Two gay men will have sisters, female friends, there will be two grandmothers, etc. Two lesbians will have male friends around, brothers, there will be grandfathers, etc. There is also traditionally a godfather and a godmother for the child. No lack of either sex around for the child to see.

Gay people don't live in a vacuum, you know.
Silly Skaladora. Gay people don't have families! Gay people spring from pods which are kept in incubators that a fueled by furnaces fed with aborted fetus corpses. Gay people don't love or form bonds, they just hatch and then go around having kinky sex with everybody they encounter.

I know you weren't asking me, but for the record I am in a heterosexual relationships and I don't believe in the male-female role distinction, nor would I remotely consider having children with anybody who did.

I guess that means my kids would automatically grow up to be axe murderers or (even worse!!!) homosexuals. Quick, somebody pass a law forbidding me to adopt!

To Fass: I meant of course, but this is all useless because you declared "no", if you would play the male or female role so to say...well whatever, one can take it purely sexual, that is a fact in a certain way.:D

But ok, I know terms like male-female-hetero etc. don't belong at all to a gay relationship, it's just me being lazy finding correct terms. And if you mean by that role-pattern-denying that you hate the kitchen-work-distinction in the tradition: that's not what I meant either! You just can't deny that there is a difference between men and women, that fact doesn't make them less ...uhm "equal-worthy" (no I'm not english of origin;) ). Fact is, I love women in a certain different way than the way in which I love my male friends. (Yes, I'm coming out for it: I'm HETERO:p )

Wouldn't it screw up the kid and have them ridiculed throughout their entire life? Eh... I'm kind of in between on this one.
That's why I don't think any minorities should be allowed to have kids. The abuse they'll take from the majority will just screw them up.

Uh, excuse me. 23 year old son, straight, in the US Air Force, damned proud of him. He knows about me. Has promised to come to any type of civil union or marriage ceremony in his uniform that I have. I told him the Air Force might frown on that, and he said, "Fuck 'em, you're my dad."

You have no experience or perspective on parenting, you have no clue who is qualified to parent and who isn't.

You really have no idea about my experience or perspective on parenting. Thank you for your opinion and your lovely anecdote.

That's why I don't think any minorities should be allowed to have kids. The abuse they'll take from the majority will just screw them up.

And that's why I think something is drastically wrong with majorities. Don't reverse the problem here. You must be American, they also generalize about what's THE problem.

By the way, this post is inconsistent no matter from which angle.

society has made being gay alot more of a choice and people act on that choice if they are different

society has made being gay alot more of a choice and people act on that choice if they are different
Except, it's not a choice. Next!

Except, it's not a choice. Next!

prove to me that it is not a choice

for every "scientific evidence you can show me saying that it is not a choice i can show you one saying it is

There are so many needy kids out there who need a loving home. I think anyone capable of raising a child should be allowed to do so. Being gay is irrelevant when it comes to your ability to raise a child.

The only possible argument I can think of against gay adoption is the fact that the kids may be discriminated against. But that isn't the fault of the gay parents, it's the fault of an unaccepting society, and will eventually disappear as people become more accepting and civilized.

prove to me that it is not a choice

for every "scientific evidence you can show me saying that it is not a choice i can show you one saying it is

This is just mind bogglingly ignorant. Try asking every gay person you meet whether they chose to live a life where they would face constant discrimination, fear their parents wouldn't love them if they found out, and have difficulty or impossibility in having a family of their own, then come back and tell me they chose that life.

I was rather bored by the recent discussion about banning gay pride parades, so I decided to throw a bit of wood into the fire.
There are thousands of children who have no one. There are even more thousands whose sorry-ass parents have no business trying to raise childen. If a gay couple can give one of these lil guys a home, and raise them with love and compassion, I'm all for it.

You really have no idea about my experience or perspective on parenting. Thank you for your opinion and your lovely anecdote.

The same can be said of you, sir. Thank you for being an ass.

I simply know that your "perspective" seems to be selective in the case of gay parents.

Truth be told, not everyone is qualified to raise children and this applies regardless of sexual orientation.

Have a nice day.

This is just mind bogglingly ignorant. Try asking every gay person you meet whether they chose to live a life where they would face constant discrimination, fear their parents wouldn't love them if they found out, and have difficulty or impossibility in having a family of their own, then come back and tell me they chose that life.

i never said conscious choice. there are many things people do that they cant really explain why they do it. even if it causes them pain or social issues.

i never said conscious choice. there are many things people do that they cant really explain why they do it. even if it causes them pain or social issues.

People do all sorts of things without consciously choosing to--procrastination is a good example. However, when people on the Far Right claim that homosexuality is a "choice," they're implying that gay people are (or can be) sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that they, out of perversion or lack of moral character, actively choose to pursue homosexual relationships.

That is bullshit. The American Psychological Association says specifically that being gay is not a choice. [http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html]

Do you really think you know better than all the psychiatrists and psychologists who deal with the human mind on a daily basis? I'm not saying the APA is infallible, but mental health professionals and every single gay person on the planet knows that homosexuality isn't a choice.

Yes, without question.

And if I have to argue with someone who'll say that it won't give them a full "education" then I will just say that having two dads or two mothers is better than having no parent at all.

Much like having a single mom or single dad is better than having no parent at all, except you have twice the single :D

Do you really think you know better than all the psychiatrists and psychologists who deal with the human mind on a daily basis? I'm not saying the APA is infallible, but mental health professionals and every single gay person on the planet knows that homosexuality isn't a choice.

hmmm... you sure about that?

i have numerous other cases that say other wise

i would never say every single person thinks one way if you are in an arguement

because that just makes it easier to prove you wrong

prove to me that it is not a choice

for every "scientific evidence you can show me saying that it is not a choice i can show you one saying it is

really really WTF. Even if it would a case of some subconcious choice -which is not a very widely accepted scientific principle anyway- then what about the choice of being not gay but heterosexual??? And don't come up with scientific darwinistic stuff about the species and such, because allthough true, it's not appropiate here.

This way, either way is a choice, one just of a minority.

BTW excuse my bad english

hmmm... you sure about that?

i have numerous other cases that say other wise

i would never say every single person thinks one way if you are in an arguement

because that just makes it easier to prove you wrong

Uh-huh. Where are these numerous other cases? Like I said. Ask every single gay person on the planet whether they choose to live a life being constantly looked down upon by ignorant people such as yourselves that assume just because you're straight, everybody must be straight naturally, and "chose" to pursue homosexual relationships.

I can't wait until fifty or a hundred years from now, when people like you are viewed as utterly ignorant as racists are today.

i voted no because i believe homosexuality is Wrong and therefore adopting children would in my opinion help spread sexual sin as the children learn from parents.

i voted no because i believe homosexuality is Wrong and therefore adopting children would in my opinion help spread sexual sin as the children learn from parents.

*lol* Sure, the children will "learn" to be gay. :rolleyes:

*lol* Sure, the children will "learn" to be gay. :rolleyes:

They will learn attitudes....

Uh-huh. Where are these numerous other cases? Like I said. Ask every single gay person on the planet whether they choose to live a life being constantly looked down upon by ignorant people such as yourselves that assume just because you're straight, everybody must be straight naturally, and "chose" to pursue homosexual relationships.

I can't wait until fifty or a hundred years from now, when people like you are viewed as utterly ignorant as racists are today.

are you sure about that?

you sound to be the ignorant one

like i said and you must understand this if you so into psychology there is conscious and subconscious. there is also more but we wont go into that

conscious you make the choice, you know we make the choice. you thought about it and made the choice.

subconscious you just kind of did it. you didnt consciously think about it you just made the choice

and where on this thread did i say i looked down upon these people or that i was straight. you assume and when you assume your facts are not straight.

are you sure about that?

you sound to be the ignorant one

like i said and you must understand this if you so into psychology there is conscious and subconscious. there is also more but we wont go into that

conscious you make the choice, you know we make the choice. you thought about it and made the choice.

subconscious you just kind of did it. you didnt consciously think about it you just made the choice

and where on this thread did i say i looked down upon these people or that i was straight. you assume and when you assume your facts are not straight.

Would you like to take a poll to see who thinks sounds more ignorant?

I know what the difference between a conscious choice and a subconscious choice is. However, the "sexuality is a choice" argument is based on the suggestion that homosexuals actively choose to be homosexual.

You're spinning the same argument, this time saying it's a "subconscious" choice rather than a "conscious" choice. However, almost NOBODY agrees with you--psychologists or the Fundamentalist Christian Right.

Many would consider the very assertion that homosexuality is a choice is "looking down" upon them. In any case, as I've said, in a hundred years, your children and grand-children will have the pleasure of knowing they were raised by someone like you, the same way people view their ancestors who fought for the confederacy today.

They will learn attitudes....
What? Tolerance?

I wish I could say yes, but I don't know how this would affect the child. Especially a girl.

Would you like to take a poll to see who thinks sounds more ignorant?

I know what the difference between a conscious choice and a subconscious choice is. However, the "sexuality is a choice" argument is based on the suggestion that homosexuals actively choose to be homosexual.

You're spinning the same argument, this time saying it's a "subconscious" choice rather than a "conscious" choice. However, almost NOBODY agrees with you--psychologists or the Fundamentalist Christian Right.

Many would consider the very assertion that homosexuality is a choice is "looking down" upon them. In any case, as I've said, in a hundred years, your children and grand-children will have the pleasure of knowing they were raised by someone like you, the same way people view their ancestors who fought for the confederacy today.

LMAO

your hilarious

i never once said before a conscious choice, check back for yourself if you dont beleive me

i said it is given as an option today. it is viewed more and more widely accepted and known of (note the rising gay population)

this can help the subconscious mind make a decision

and i hope you grandchildren see you as the same way view the people who thought the earth was flat or center of the universe

What? Tolerance?

In my opinion living with a pair of gays would encourage the attitude of 'homosexuality' if thats the right word, and since i know homosexuality to be wrong i therefore think the adoption of children by gays to be wrong.

LMAO

your hilarious

i never once said before a conscious choice, check back for yourself if you dont beleive me

i said it is given as an option today. it is viewed more and more widely accepted and known of (note the rising gay population)

this can help the subconscious mind make a decision

and i hope you grandchildren see you as the same way view the people who thought the earth was flat or center of the universe

Congratulations. You have proven your inability to read. I said that while YOU assert it's an unconscious choice, the people who traditionally make that argument (the fundamentalist Christian Right) argue it is an active choice.

Psychologists argue it is not a choice at all. However, YOU argue it's a "subconscious choice," and almost NOBODY agrees with you.

And by the way, the gay population hasn't "risen" at all--people are becoming more willing to be openly gay as society becomes more accepting.

I like how you've attempted (pathetically, non-sensically) to turn around the 'grandchildren' argument on me, however--it's YOU who is turning a blind eye to science by ignoring the psychiatrists and psychologists of the world.

In my opinion living with a pair of gays would encourage the attitude of 'homosexuality' if thats the right word, and since i know homosexuality to be wrong i therefore think the adoption of children by gays to be wrong.

You mean it would encourage tolerance...? This is a problem why?
Oh, you "know" it to be wrong. You have proof of this?

You mean it would encourage tolerance...? This is a problem why?
Oh, you "know" it to be wrong. You have proof of this?

okay. i think it to be wrong because im a christain and it clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sexual sin. But im all for tolerance but not the encourogment of sexual sin.

You mean it would encourage tolerance...? This is a problem why?
Oh, you "know" it to be wrong. You have proof of this?
Send the world into Hell.

It's in the bible ;)

okay. i think it to be wrong because im a christain and it clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sexual sin. But im all for tolerance but not the encourogment of sexual sin.

Actually, I don't remember anywhere in the bible where it said that. Do you remember what book it was in?

The American Psychological Association said that in their studies they discovered that there were no more issues in children raised in gay couples than in straight couples. Why not allow it?

okay. i think it to be wrong because im a christain and it clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sexual sin. But im all for tolerance but not the encourogment of sexual sin.
Do you look at porn?

Actually, I don't remember anywhere in the bible where it said that. Do you remember what book it was in?

There are sevral refrences in the old testament but i think there is something in acts and the beginning of Romans....

Do you look at porn?

No.

The American Psychological Association said that in their studies they discovered that there were no more issues in children raised in gay couples than in straight couples. Why not allow it?

I did say in my opinion....

No.
Damn.

How do you feel about your sexuality? Do you look at a girl and go "DAMN SHES HOT!"

Or are you a prude?

I did say in my opinion....
Opinion vs. Fact

You lose.

Damn.

How do you feel about your sexuality? Do you look at a girl and go "DAMN SHES HOT!"

Or are you a prude?

Naturally i like girls and think some are hot.....

I got to go so no more posts for me unfortuntaly.

In my opinion living with a pair of gays would encourage the attitude of 'homosexuality' if thats the right word, and since i know homosexuality to be wrong i therefore think the adoption of children by gays to be wrong.

Homosexuality is not an "attitude". A homosexual person may have any or all of the same attitudes as a heterosexual person. Homosexuality is a sexuality - a trait of a given person.

And, intrestingly enough, studies are clear that children raised by homosexuals are no more or less likely to be homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. At most, they are less likely to be bigots who would look down on someone because of their sexual orientation.

okay. i think it to be wrong because im a christain and it clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sexual sin. But im all for tolerance but not the encourogment of sexual sin.

*Newsflash* bible = lies and manipulative crap.
This applies to British Persons' skewed, self-promoting interpretation. Not nice, friendly Christians' interpretations.

okay. i think it to be wrong because im a christain and it clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sexual sin. But im all for tolerance but not the encourogment of sexual sin.
If homosexuality were a couples only sin (and with thought given to all the sins most people are preoccupied with) would they be as worthy to raise a child as the average heterosexual couple?

Naturally i like girls and think some are hot.....

I got to go so no more posts for me unfortuntaly.
Do you mean heterosexuality is natural?

*Newsflash* bible = lies and manipulative crap.
j00 lie!!!!!!

There are sevral refrences in the old testament but i think there is something in acts and the beginning of Romans....

None of which actually say what you believe them to say.

All of the admonitions are "about laying with a man as you would with a woman". Gay men would not lay with a woman, so the admonition does not apply to gay men.

Romans addresses men who gave up their "natural" relationships with women and took up "unnatural" relationships with men.

Each instance addresses heterosexuals choosing to engage in same-sex acts. None address those for whom it is natural to be attracted to their own sex.

The beliefs you are claiming in the name of Christianity are appalling to me, as a Christian. I implore the rest of you not to believe that all Christians think like British does.

None of which actually say what you believe them to say.

All of the admonitions are "about laying with a man as you would with a woman". Gay men would not lay with a woman, so the admonition does not apply to gay men.

Romans addresses men who gave up their "natural" relationships with women and took up "unnatural" relationships with men.

Each instance addresses heterosexuals choosing to engage in same-sex acts. None address those for whom it is natural to be attracted to their own sex.

The beliefs you are claiming in the name of Christianity are appalling to me, as a Christian. I implore the rest of you not to believe that all Christians think like British does.
I actually never saw those arguments worded that way before. I'd like to see what other Christians have to say about it.

okay. i think it to be wrong because im a christain and it clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is a sexual sin. But im all for tolerance but not the encourogment of sexual sin.

The same passages that "prohibit" homosexuality prohibit other things that Christians blatantly ignore:

Leviticus 11:9-12 NIV -- "`Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

This forbids almost every kind of seafood excluding fish. Shellfish, shrimp, squid, lobster, etc.

Leviticus 25:37 - KJV -- Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

This forbids earning or providing interest on money, which you do automatically by having a savings account at any bank.

Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
" 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plan your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

This is preposterous. How many farms do you know that don't segregate their crops precisely? Ever worn or slept on anything made from POLYESTER? You have sinned!

Exodus 20:10 - KJV -- But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

You may not work on Sunday! But how many people do? Gee, let's think for a moment!

Corinthians 14:34 - NIV -- women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Wee! Women can't talk in Church. Behave, nasty women!

-----------------

If you really want to use the Bible as a moral guidepost, then don't just pick and choose what to believe. Believe the whole thing or none of it! It makes no sense to claim that the Bible is "divinely inspired," then turn around and ignore more than half of it!

Corinthians 14:34 - NIV -- women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Wee! Women can't talk in Church. Behave, nasty women!



Actually this statement is misunderstood by most of modern America. The "law" actually said they shouldn't be in the temple. They weren't even supposed to be in church. For the first time, someone was granting women the right to be in a church. Paul was not the misogynist that many modern Christians fear he was.

Sheerly allowing them to be in the church was revolutionary. If Paul lived today he'd likely teach that women should be allowed to speak, read, teach, pray, etc... in the church.

yes, there is no good scientific evidence I have seen that says gays make bad parents.

As a matter of fact, wtih the exception of ONE man, who is a moronic neo-nazi fascist to begin wtih, all argument to make gay marriage/rights illegal coem from the religious right. But what befuddles me is how they can use religion, which is susposed to stay out of goverenment and the law, to back up a law.

I actually never saw those arguments worded that way before. I'd like to see what other Christians have to say about it.

That's certainly one way to look at it. None of the passages seem to address those who are actually homosexual - form whom homosexual attractions are natural.

The first generally referenced passage - the Leviticus one - can be looked at in all sorts of ways. And even then, you are relying upon a translation that may or may not have been correct in the first place. When a person actually just translates all the words directly, without adding in the articles and such necessary in the English language but not present in the Hebrew, you begin to wonder if it is talking about homosexual sex at all.

The references in the NT are particularly a problem, because Paul tends to use words that he seems to have made up. Some of the words he uses have no other contemporary uses - so we can't be sure what they mean. Others seem to refer to practices specific to the time - things like taking young male children as prostitutes or heterosexual persons performing homosexual sex acts for temple favors. None of them clearly refer to relations between actual homosexuals.

So, when it comes right down to it, a Christian has to look directly to God's guidance on this issue. As far as I can tell, homosexuality is not a sin - and homosexual relationships are not a sin if you are truly homosexual. Said relationships should be treated the same way as heterosexual relationships (ie. no promiscuity, cheating, etc.).

The first generally referenced passage - the Leviticus one - can be looked at in all sorts of ways. And even then, you are relying upon a translation that may or may not have been correct in the first place. When a person actually just translates all the words directly, without adding in the articles and such necessary in the English language but not present in the Hebrew, you begin to wonder if it is talking about homosexual sex at all.
Truth. In fact, there's a good chance that the original verse was prohibiting men from sleeping on the same bed as a menstruating woman.

The references in the NT are particularly a problem, because Paul tends to use words that he seems to have made up. Some of the words he uses have no other contemporary uses - so we can't be sure what they mean. Others seem to refer to practices specific to the time - things like taking young male children as prostitutes or heterosexual persons performing homosexual sex acts for temple favors. None of them clearly refer to relations between actual homosexuals.
Well, by translating the roots, one can infer that arsenokotai meant "male temple prostitute".

So, when it comes right down to it, a Christian has to look directly to God's guidance on this issue.
Or they can look in the Bible and see how it treats the love between David and Jonathan. (Positively, for the lazy ones in the audience.)

If you really want to use the Bible as a moral guidepost, then don't just pick and choose what to believe. Believe the whole thing or none of it! It makes no sense to claim that the Bible is "divinely inspired," then turn around and ignore more than half of it!

I don't think religion has a place in any discussion regarding moral issues but I want to say one thing. Unlike sexuality, religion is a choice and people can choose what to believe and what not to believe.

Aside from religion, many people view homosexuality in a negative way for the sole reason that it is unnatural. Their inability to reproduce alone is proof that it is not "normal" to be sexually attracted to your own sex. This may transfer into a religion much like the way deformation is viewed as punishment for an ancestor's sins.

I think it is highly understandable for religious people to view homosexulaity as a sin.

As a partial atheist of sorts, I view homosexuality as a mental disorder which should(for the lack of a better word) be cured. If this disorder reduces a persons ability to parent or not is beyond me, but probably not. I do believe, however, that blind acceptance and/or tolerance would be more harmful than not. Allowing gay couples to adopt would lead to a greater acceptance by society and to ignore the fact that homosexuality is unnatural.

I'll leave this argument as it is because this is an intricate subject and I'll start contradicting myself if I went on any further.

Aside from religion, many people view homosexuality in a negative way for the sole reason that it is unnatural.

If it occurs in nature, it is logically impossible for it to be "unnatural". Thus, homosexuality is not "unnatural."

Their inability to reproduce alone is proof that it is not "normal" to be sexually attracted to your own sex.

I'm sorry, did someone tell you that homosexuality was linked to infertility? Just so you know, it isn't. Homosexuals are just as able to reproduce as anyone else. They may not enjoy the beginning of the process as much, but they are perfectly capable.

Meanwhile, "normal" and "natural" are not synonyms. It is not "normal" to be left-handed. The norm is right-handed, and left-handed persons are thus not "normal." There is nothing "unnatural", however, about left-handedness.

As a partial atheist of sorts, I view homosexuality as a mental disorder which should(for the lack of a better word) be cured.

Good thing all major medical groups disagree with you. There is nothing about homosexuality that is a mental disorder, and there is absolutley no reason to cure it.

I'll leave this argument as it is because this is an intricate subject and I'll start contradicting myself if I went on any further.

You started contradicting yourself the minute you made an idiotic statement like "homosexuality is unnatural."

Allowing gay couples to adopt would lead to a greater acceptance by society and to ignore the fact that homosexuality is unnatural.

It exists in nature, ergo it is not unnatural.

I think I may be misunderstood.

The "normal" I refer to was used to say that most people aren't gay, and I wanted to link the word with natural, thus the quotation marks.

And "natural" as in the tendency in nature to reproduce. I don't mean to say that one gay person does not have the ability to reproduce. I mean to say that a gay couple can not. Not that a gay person is unnatural, but a gay couple is.

Just an opinion.

I think I may be misunderstood.

No, you are perfectly understood. Your points are just illogical.

The "normal" I refer to was used to say that most people aren't gay, and I wanted to link the word with natural, thus the quotation marks.

But the two are not linked. If something occurs in nature, even abnormally, it is natural. Thus, homosexuality cannot be said to be unnatural.

And "natural" as in the tendency in nature to reproduce.

And you think all of nature hinges upon every single individual reproducing?

I don't mean to say that one gay person does not have the ability to reproduce. I mean to say that a gay couple can not. Not that a gay person is unnatural, but a gay couple is.

If a gay person is not unnatural (and they obviously are not), then a gay couple cannot be unnatural either.

Are you aware that homosexual pair-bonds will often adopt offspring in nature and take care of it? Are you aware that members of homosexual pair-bonds will actually mate with a different-sex partner in order to have offspring, and then raise that offspring with their same-sex partner?

There really is nothing odd about the idea.

Just an opinion.

Kind of like the opinion that 2+2=5.

Yes, in the same conditions than heterosexual.

No, you are perfectly understood. Your points are just illogical.



But the two are not linked. If something occurs in nature, even abnormally, it is natural. Thus, homosexuality cannot be said to be unnatural.



And you think all of nature hinges upon every single individual reproducing?



If a gay person is not unnatural (and they obviously are not), then a gay couple cannot be unnatural either.

Are you aware that homosexual pair-bonds will often adopt offspring in nature and take care of it? Are you aware that members of homosexual pair-bonds will actually mate with a different-sex partner in order to have offspring, and then raise that offspring with their same-sex partner?

There really is nothing odd about the idea.



Kind of like the opinion that 2+2=5.

No, you need only quote him; "I'll leave this argument as it is because this is an intricate subject and I'll start contradicting myself if I went on any further."

He strives not to contradict himself...after all.

I think it is highly understandable for religious people to view homosexulaity as a sin.

I would also remember that the highest authority on Christianity isn't the Bible but Christ himself. The Bible was written by men and there is even some evidence of editing by church scholars. Knowing so well the history of the Catholic Church, it is not crazy to think that some hate-words were included.

Being a Christian doesn't mean following the Bible. It means following Jesus. I am a Christian Agnostic and only use the Bible to hear what Jesus said and he never condemned relationships between men. In fact he said something quite different:

Jesus claims, "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."
Luke 17:34

If Jesus said one of these men reached salvation, how could homosexuality be a deadly sin? If some priest tells you "homosexuality is a deadly sin", he is wrong. If the pope tells you "homosexuality is a deadly sin", he is wrong. Why? Because Jesus said so.

They are going to give their kids gayness!

Gays behave like that zombie simulator. Everybody runs away until they get cornered, and then BAM! one more gay.

I think it is highly understandable for religious people to view homosexulaity as a sin.

It is also highly hypocritical and counter to at least christian faith to punish or look down on someone for sinful behavior.

All people are sinners, therefore the only thing with the position to punish a sinner is God.

1 Timothy
Youth Bible translation

Verse 9 onwards
9 We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, whio are not holy and have no religion, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, (verse 10) who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual realations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves.......

How can you say that homosexuality is not a sin after reading this? I added some of the other stuff to put it into context.

Hell yes!

1 Timothy
Youth Bible translation

Verse 9 onwards
9 We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, whio are not holy and have no religion, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, (verse 10) who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual realations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves.......

How can you say that homosexuality is not a sin after reading this? I added some of the other stuff to put it into context.


It may be a sin.
But how does that affect this particular issue?

It may be a sin.
But how does that affect this particular issue?

Some debating yesterday would put it into context

Here's a thought.

Who is best placed to bring up a gay or lesbian teenager, a (quite often) gay ignorant heterosexual couple, or a gay couple who would be better placed to understand the emotional, social and personal difficulties most young gay people have.

For the gay couple, it's a "win-win" situation. They would obviously be better role models for any gay kids as well as being (usually) more sound about taking on parental responsibilities and challenging ignorance and prejudice when it occurs. After all, thery have been there themselves. This means they would be a preferred choice for heterosexual kids also.

Short answer:
YES.

Long answer:
YES, for fuck's sake.
Anyone willing to love and care for a child should be allowed to do so. The completely baseless fears and faulty reasoning that makes religious folks and moralists across the nation fear for the soul of the country are the worst kind of mob-mentality horseshit.

Adopting an unwanted child and giving it a home? That might be something Christ would do. Wake up and shut your cakeholes you moralistic twats.

Simple enough?

That's true. But...

What happens in elementary school when the children are asked to make Mother's Day/Father's Day cards or something of that nature? Wouldn't that have a detremental effect on the child?
Are you high? THIS is your argument?

OK, I'll take a stab at it.

I think that people are looking at this the wrong way. The question should be what's best for the kid, not what's fair for the parents. Speaking as a parent, fairness is a very distant second to the kids' welfare.

Given the way things are here (Texas, USA) I'd say gays shouldnt adopt - chances are they'd be doing the kid no favors. They might still compare well to foster care, orphanage or drug addicted single moms, so I'd oppose a law prohibiting gay adoption, even here - but considering that *I'm* a relative liberal locally, this is not the place for it.
You realize that just saying "the way things are in Texas" is not a justification for...well...ANYthing, don't you? How's about a reason why you think they'd be doing the kid "no favors" -- or are you just going to say "it's Texas" and leave it at that? If that's the case, fuck Texas. I spent three years there, and I wouldn't go back for anything. Defend your paltry reasoning or go shit in your ridiculous hat.

1 Timothy
Youth Bible translation

Verse 9 onwards
9 We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, whio are not holy and have no religion, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, (verse 10) who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual realations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves.......

How can you say that homosexuality is not a sin after reading this? I added some of the other stuff to put it into context.

These are not the words of Jesus... These are words written by men. Are you arguing that the words of Paul the apostle are of higher authority than those of Jesus? Tell you what, most scholars believe that what you just quoted was not even written by Paul himself, but after his death.

Just in case you don't know, a bishop called "Irenaeus made extensive use of the two epistles to Timothy as the prime force of his anti-gnostic campaign, ca 170 CE, there is no certain quotation of any of these epistles before him. Proposals by critical scholars for the date of their composition have ranged from the first century to well into the second."

Irenaeus was the main author of the compilation of the modern Bible and was a men that burned non-catholic christians on the stake. Hardly, your best christian example.

[SIZE="7"]SIZE] (from above thread which has large font)
Anyone willing to love and care for a child should be allowed to do so.

So lets let murderers and crinimals etc out and let them adopt children, who care for cildren and love children??? bit extreem example but it's the same principle.

So lets let murderers and crinimals etc out and let them adopt children, who care for cildren and love children??? bit extreem example but it's the same principle.
No, its really bloody not, because (and how many times do I have to say this) being homosexual has no effect on your children!

British:

The bible, especially youth-translated and re-translated and versions and others like them, is a misquoted, edited, rewritten pile of garbage.

Murderers are allowed to adopt children, if they're straight. Does that make sense?

You seem like a good person, you just need to question your sources more. Lean towards not what the bible or the church tells you, but your instinct of humanistic love and compassion. This is what Jesus did.

Thats why bush needs to be removed from power:sniper:

He isn't going to be removed...he's going to be expired.

1 Timothy
Youth Bible translation

Verse 9 onwards
9 We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, whio are not holy and have no religion, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, (verse 10) who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual realations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves.......

How can you say that homosexuality is not a sin after reading this? I added some of the other stuff to put it into context.

Here's where this argument falls apart.
*Since Homosexuals are sinners, then they must not be allowed to adopt [and raise] children.
Said children would be exposed to and taught sinfullness.

The Bible also contains a pretty specific list of 10 sins. These sins are not exclusively applied to homosexuals--but, heterosexuals as well. And, since heterosexuals are by far the largest majority it follows that heterosexuals commit the largest majority of sins. Thus,

*Since Heterosexuals are sinners, then they must not be allowed to adopt [and raise] children.
Said children would be exposed to and taught sinfullness.

It is a great tragedy that for some children, heterosexuals are able to conceive and bear children by sexual default

I have little issue with responsible homosexuals adopting children if they so wish to do so, but with the added caveat that I really don't believe it's the best upbringing possible for children.

I do not - vehemently do not - believe in IVF for homosexuals, or any aid whatsoever in conception. In fact, I don't believe in artificial support for fertility in any way, shape, or form - but when you live on a planet of six billion people, a good percentage of whom are hungry, it's hard to find another point of view that's morally centred and unselfish.

I myself will very likely never have children (the reason is private); but I would never consider an artificial aid to having children 'naturally' when there are so many children all around the world desperately in need of love and support from new 'parents'.

I'd also like to note that I strongly believe that having children is not a right. It is a privelige.

Anyone willing to love and care for a child should be allowed to do so.

So lets let murderers and crinimals etc out and let them adopt children, who care for cildren and love children??? bit extreem example but it's the same principle.

No. No, and again, in case you missed it, NO. No matter how many times you try it, you cannot equate homosexuality with CRIME. It is not a crime, homosexuals ARE NOT CRIMINALS.

This is a tactic often employed by uneducated people who are prejudiced against homosexuality but have no actual basis to back up their arguments. It is completely faulty reasoning, and whenever seen, should be called.

I have little issue with responsible homosexuals adopting children if they so wish to do so, but with the added caveat that I really don't believe it's the best upbringing possible for children.

Why is it not the best?

I've been reading some of the arguments and I thought I'd chime in whether people agree with what I say or not...

I don't think they should be allowed. I think each child needs a mother and a father. I think that boys need a father and girls need a mother (I don't think anyone would argue with that) but I also think they need the other side of the equation as well. Personally I think that Homosexuality is wrong but thats not why I think they shouldn't be able to adopt.

I've been reading some of the arguments and I thought I'd chime in whether people agree with what I say or not...

I don't think they should be allowed. I think each child needs a mother and a father. I think that boys need a father and girls need a mother (I don't think anyone would argue with that) but I also think they need the other side of the equation as well. Personally I think that Homosexuality is wrong but thats not why I think they shouldn't be able to adopt.
...Except the link posted earlier (http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html) which points to both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association's stance on gays as parents. Both organizations have stated that there is no evidence showing that children reared by homosexual parents fare worse than those raised in traditional male-female settings.

While the country that lies between Canada and Mexico is "outside of Sweden," it's hardly the world.
Are gays allowed to adopt in Mexico and Canada?

Poland and the US make not "most of the world," either. For instance, I quite care about the situation on the Faroe Islands. When will they finally sever their dependency on Denmark?
Why are the Faroe Islands more worthy of concern than the USA or Poland?

I really don't believe it's the best upbringing possible for children.
I think each child needs a mother and a father. I think that boys need a father and girls need a mother (I don't think anyone would argue with that)...
Unfortunately, we live far from an ideal world. There are heterosexual couples that are completely unprepared (financially, emotionally, intellectually, etc) just as there are homosexual couples that may also not live up to the challenge of bringing up a balanced child. The reverse is also true and curiously, the children are unaffected by their parents' sexual preferences. Homosexual couples bring up heterosexual children and vice-versa.

Now, if you replaced the word "best" with "utopian ideal", maybe I would be closer to agreeing with you. Still, even in Utopia, I would still defend gay adopting until there wasn't a single child left in an orphanage. Or do you prefer to leave a child without a father AND a mother than having the child being raised by two fathers or two mothers, who could possibly provide the missing model with an uncle, an aunt, cousins, the couples' parents or even their friends? Isn't this what about single parents do? Is it worst than growing up in an orphanage?

I haven't heard one person saying out loudly they believe it's better for a child to stay in an orphanage than being adopted by a loving homosexual couple. Could you two answer this one for me please? The question with adoption shouldn't be about finding heterosexual parents but finding loving parents that can provide to the child's needs. Leaving them in orphanages until their adulthood and then sending out to the streets, without a family to support them, is certainly not in anyone's interest, certainly not the child's. Without a family, this young adult is much more vulnerable to a life of poverty, crime or drug addiction.
I'd also like to note that I strongly believe that having children is not a right. It is a privelige.
First, in countries where gay adopting isn't allowed, your sentence implies that homosexual couples aren't worthy of such a privilege, which is nothing more that pure discrimination. Second, your sentence takes the emphasis off the child's interest, i.e. it's the parent's privilege. So where is your primary concern after all? Denying thousands of children a loving home is denying them a fundamental right; the right to a family. It's also denying homosexual parents the right to live without being discriminated.
Personally I think that Homosexuality is wrong but thats not why I think they shouldn't be able to adopt.
Do not judge, lest you too be judged.
[John 8:7]
Will you ever listen to Him?

Not reading the entire 11 pages, I am glad the numbers are they way they are, 220 yea, 45 nay.

First off, fix one of those quotes, I didn't say. One of those is definetly not a quote of something I said.

I just got through looking at that page of statistics. I went through all of them. Most compared single Lesbian Mother and Single Heterosexual Mothers. The ones that actually dealt with homosexual vs. heterosexual parents only showed statistics on how likely they are to end up homosexual.

None delt with the psychology of raising a kid without a mother or a father. My reason for not thinking Gay Couples should adopt is the same reason I don't thinke Single parents should adopt.

I haven't heard one person saying out loudly they believe it's better for a child to stay in an orphanage than being adopted by a loving homosexual couple. Could you two answer this one for me please?

You raise a good point. I'm not sure I have a satisfactory answer to it to be honest. The answer I have come up with just because its a loving couple doesn't mean its better. Heterosexual couples are denied adoptions for various reasons as well... you could say that whatever child they would have adopted would have been better off with them than in an orphanage as well, but for one reason or another they were denied.

Do not judge, lest you too be judged.
[John 8:7]
Will you ever listen to Him?

The bible there isn't saying not to judge acts. It is saying that you should not judge the person as everyone has sinned and no sin is bigger than anyone elses. I think homosexuality is a sin, but I do not judge them as I have other sin myself.

Yes. But if gays weren't allowed to adopt in the US, how could they tell if you were gay or not?

First off, fix one of those quotes, I didn't say. One of those is definetly not a quote of something I said.
The quotes don't need fixing. The first one isn't yours; it mentions the name of a different poster Ma-Tek. Hence why I asked "could you two answer this one for me?"
You raise a good point. I'm not sure I have a satisfactory answer to it to be honest.
Then I suggest you consider this point a bit further and, until you do, I would also suggest you are not thinking about the children first, but in your personal beliefs. Saying it's not enough to be loving parents is stating the obvious, still I rather give a child to a poor loving family than a rich violent family. Now if gay parents fill all the prerequisites, apart from being a man and a woman of course, then there is no reason why children should be left abandoned in orphanages.
The bible there isn't saying not to judge acts.
Why would Jesus say "don't judge" if he meant the other way? Don't try to interpret what is blatantly clear. It says "don't judge" because that is the power of God, the power that mankind envies.

These are not the words of Jesus... These are words written by men. Are you arguing that the words of Paul the apostle are of higher authority than those of Jesus? Tell you what, most scholars believe that what you just quoted was not even written by Paul himself, but after his death.

And even if what was originally written were absolutely correct, it wasn't written in English, was it? Considering the number of ways that passage has been translated, what makes anyone think that the particular translation quoted is correct?


None delt with the psychology of raising a kid without a mother or a father. My reason for not thinking Gay Couples should adopt is the same reason I don't thinke Single parents should adopt.

So you think a child is better off in an orphanage with no parents whatsoever than with a single parent?

And do you really think that a male/female role model has to be a parent?

Without a family, this young adult is much more vulnerable to a life of poverty, crime or drug addiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marislavia
I'd also like to note that I strongly believe that having children is not a right. It is a privelige.

First, in countries where gay adopting isn't allowed, your sentence implies that homosexual couples aren't worthy of such a privilege, which is nothing more that pure discrimination.

that quote is the one I was talking about. I never said "I'd also like to note that I strongly believe that having children is not a right. It is a privelige."

I would quote you in this but I'm referring to the whole message so... anyway

If adoption agencies hold that single people can't adopt (I'm not sure if all do, but I know that a good number do) what is their reason? It is the lack of a mother and a father. What other reason could there be?

As far as the Judging statement, I'm not judging any person. In that verse they are talking about not judging people. If I see a homosexual person I do not judge them for being homosexual, that's God's job. Just as I would not want to be judged for my sins by anyone, thats also god's job. Doesn't change the fact that my sins are wrong as are everyone elses. I said homosexuality was a sin, not that I hate homosexuals or that they are all going to hell.

So you think a child is better off in an orphanage with no parents whatsoever than with a single parent?

And do you really think that a male/female role model has to be a parent?
This can be replied to the same as above. If people who know more than me about the welfare of children, won't allow single parents to adopt, who am I to argue differently. Not I don't believe that a male/female role model has to be a parent, but the only way to guarantee that the child will get one of each is to have a male/female couple adopt. You can't guarantee a child of 2 homosexual males will get a female role model and you cant guarantee a child of 2 homosexual females will get a male role model.

If adoption agencies hold that single people can't adopt (I'm not sure if all do, but I know that a good number do) what is their reason? It is the lack of a mother and a father. What other reason could there be?


How about the reason that a single parent can't be expected to give sufficient care as well as work on a job as well as two parents hmmm? That doesn't prevent gay couples at all then.

thats a possible reason... still doesn't account for the fact that children of single mothers growing up without a father aren't as well off psychologically as those with fathers and vice versa

that quote is the one I was talking about. I never said "I'd also like to note that I strongly believe that having children is not a right. It is a privelige."
Apologies for my misunderstanding. It's been corrected.
If adoption agencies hold that single people can't adopt (I'm not sure if all do, but I know that a good number do) what is their reason? It is the lack of a mother and a father. What other reason could there be?
Some countries allow for single parents to adopt and I'm sure the demands from adoption officials are higher, for these cases. p.s. I also agree that it is a heavier burden on a single parent than on a gay couple. Maybe allowing single parents to adopt only one child, at least until the child becomes a teenager (and subject to reavaluation of all prerequisites).
As far as the Judging statement, I'm not judging any person.
You are judging gay parents unfit to raise a child, when there is already evidence to prove this is a wrong prejudice.
This can be replied to the same as above. If people who know more than me about the welfare of children, won't allow single parents to adopt, who am I to argue differently.
You are in your right to argue differently whenever you feel that official policy isn't in the children's best interests. With millions in orphanages, and good people wanting to adopt, it's hard to argue they are doing the right thing.
You can't guarantee a child of 2 homosexual males will get a female role model and you cant guarantee a child of 2 homosexual females will get a male role model.
Why not? Maybe an adopting gay couple should guarantee a female role model, somehow. If that is the problem, ask from the couple to name the Godmother, to fill the role, and ask her to attend an interview and commit herself on paper.

You are judging gay parents unfit to raise a child, when there is already evidence to prove this is a wrong prejudice.


As I have said many times I'm not judging them as unfit to raise a child. I'm saying that the child needs a male and a female role model. I have not once said that the fact that they are gay makes them unfit to raise a child.

As for the Godmother idea... It has merit, I hadn't thought about that possibility before. Though just asking them to sign a piece of paper saying they will be involved in the life of the child doesn't seem like it is enough. If such a way existed then I would not be opposed to the adoption as long as they met the other requirements given to heterosexual couples as well.

Though just asking them to sign a piece of paper saying they will be involved in the life of the child doesn't seem like it is enough. If such a way existed then I would not be opposed to the adoption as long as they met the other requirements given to heterosexual couples as well.

The couple adopting will have to sign papers and that, in itself, is obviously not enough either, hence why all the other prerequisites. As to your closing statement, I'm happy we've settled an agreement. A victory, no doubt, for the children.

Now I can go to bed and rest in peace.
Good night.

p.s. that's why Jesus also said that if we were One, we could move mountains.

Yes, I don't have a problem with it. If they are a committed couple & can offer a stable family environment, then why shouldn't they?

thats a possible reason... still doesn't account for the fact that children of single mothers growing up without a father aren't as well off psychologically as those with fathers and vice versa

And the reasoning for this would be? Is it the lack of parental support due to increased time constraints on single parents? Do you have any data to prove this assertion of yours by the way?

If adoption agencies hold that single people can't adopt (I'm not sure if all do, but I know that a good number do) what is their reason? It is the lack of a mother and a father. What other reason could there be?

First, it is clearly obvious that single persons can and do adopt children.
Rosie O'Donnell?
Why can a person like Rosie or Michael Jackson adopt children--even the intensely preferred an coveted infants-- and the average, single Jane or Joe can not?

MONEY. Lots of MONEY.

So, the "best interests of the children"; having two role models--mother and father, isn't so critical to the decision after all.

As a Buddhist, I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't actually hurt someone or affect them in a negative way. I seriously doubt that homosexual parents would make their children homosexual, but even if they did, this would only be a bad thing if you are prejudice against them to begin with.

First, it is clearly obvious that single persons can and do adopt children.
Rosie O'Donnell?
.


Last Time I checked, Rosie had a LifePartner.


Nevertheless, I do not see the critical need of a male/female parent unit... as long as the financial situation is positive, there should be no problem.
Somebody show me the statistics that show single parents have more negative effects on their children than coupled ones.

This can be replied to the same as above. If people who know more than me about the welfare of children, won't allow single parents to adopt, who am I to argue differently.

Most adoption agencies and nearly every government will allow single parents to adopt, so long as that parent can demonstrate that, even alone, they can invest the time and money needed to raise a child.

Want to guess at why? Could it be that living in an orphanage or being shuttled from foster home to foster home is not an especially healthy situation?

Not I don't believe that a male/female role model has to be a parent, but the only way to guarantee that the child will get one of each is to have a male/female couple adopt.

You're kidding, right? Having a male and female in the house does not in any way guarantee that the child will have a male and female role model. My birth parents were both in the house throughout a great deal of my life, and I can point-blank state that my father was no role model.

thats a possible reason... still doesn't account for the fact that children of single mothers growing up without a father aren't as well off psychologically as those with fathers and vice versa

"Fact", eh? I can state, with absolute certainty, that I was better off once my father was out of the house - psychologically and otherwise.


Last Time I checked, Rosie had a LifePartner.

She didn't when she first adopted (at least not openly). And her lifepartner is not a wife by law, and she is thus legally counted as single. Her lifepartner can have no legal guardianship over her adopted children.

1 Timothy
Youth Bible translation

Verse 9 onwards
9 We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, whio are not holy and have no religion, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, (verse 10) who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual realations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves.......

How can you say that homosexuality is not a sin after reading this? I added some of the other stuff to put it into context.

But you chose a translation that says what you want it to say. It's a translation with a "political" agenda. Scholarly biblical debate must come from a scholarly translation, hence why (up-to-this-point) the translations chosen by others have been the RSV and the NRSV.

I could post the Living Bible and it would be far different than any of the translations we've so far seen, but that doesn't make it scholarly.

Nearly all of the translations not considered "scholarly" are translated to apply to a specific "brand" (I'm trying to avoid the word denomination) of Christianity. Hence, they are useful for worship, but not scholarly debate.

Wouldn't it screw up the kid and have them ridiculed throughout their entire life? Eh... I'm kind of in between on this one.

Screw up the kid? No...it wont.

As for ridicule, maybe if people stop hating gays noone will mind if you have gay parents.

They should be allowed.
And Im not the only one who thinks so...
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association also agree with me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption#External_links

Sorry if these have already been posted, but I couldnt be bothered to read 14 pages..., dont judge me!

1 Timothy
Youth Bible translation

Verse 9 onwards
9 We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, whio are not holy and have no religion, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, (verse 10) who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual realations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves.......

How can you say that homosexuality is not a sin after reading this? I added some of the other stuff to put it into context.

Youth bible...please...

9. Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Thats what it really says.

The english bible that we read now has gone through so many translations, its actually uncertain what the real text said. It has been translated to homosexual, but who knows what influence translators were under?

If a homosexual orientation was really the horrific, terrible thing it is made out to be, why did Jesus have nothing to say about the subject? If God is so angered and repulsed by homosexuals, why did God’s Son heal the gay lover of a Roman Centurion?* Why did Jesus speak more about money and adultery and not mention one single word against homosexuals? Perhaps the answers to these questions has more to do with the power and control politics of the Church than with the Word of God.

Here is the bottom line. Grace is not yours or mine to give out. Grace belongs to God and to God alone. If God chooses to be merciful and graceful to a homosexual, there is not one thing any human being can do to stop it. God’s grace is God’s alone. There is no human being, save One, capable of judging the human heart. And that one person is Jesus Christ; a man who was so close to God that He knew Himself to be God’s very own Beloved.

*:
4 When he entered Capernaum, 5 a centurion approached him and appealed to him,
6
saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully."
7
He said to him, "I will come and cure him."
8
The centurion said in reply, 6 "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.
9
For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel 7 have I found such faith.
11
I say to you, 8 many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven,
12
but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."
13
And Jesus said to the centurion, "You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you." And at that very hour (his) servant was healed.

That slave is now known to have been a homosexual sex slave.