Children should not be in these situations…we hesitate to call them households, because they aren’t.
Children have the right to be raised in a family with a mother and a father. Period.
They are not commodities to be used to “play” house and make a lifestyle of sin and immorality have the veneer of normalcy.
~ Michael Voris discussing the reasons against homosexual adoption, Real Catholic TV, July 14
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Agree 1,000%. It’s one thing if these gay couples choose to live their own lifestyle and quite another thing to bring child(ren) into their ungodly lifestyle and call it ‘normal’.
Sigh. Here we go. I know it’s a controversial topic that generates lots of comments and “hits” on Jill’s site, but these posts never go anywhere or amount to anything productive other than to pit pro-lifers against each other.
It’s not that big of a deal, really.
What does this have to do with abortion? And what makes gay households different from any other household, like a single parent, or two brothers raising a child, or whatever?
What at cruel, twisted trick to play on these children. They deserve both a mother and father.
Well, if kids just so absolutely need to have both a mother and father-then why not abort every child who’s going to be born to a single mother, or a single father?
Why not abort any kids who are likely to wait for perfectly good, loving, selfless families because LGBT people are not allowed to foster or adopt them?
And if there’s ever a prenatal diagnostic test for sexual orientation-won’t that be the friend of the “traditional family,” because it will allow “reparative therapy” of families through abortion?
And while you’re at it, if being LGBT is so horrible & perverted, such a fate worse than death-why not pressure LGBT teens so much to become straight that they abort themselves through suicide? Or take self-destructive risks with heterosexual sex and actually experience higher rates of unintended & unsupported pregnancies & often have abortions?
No, I don’t think abortion is the answer in any of these situations. But I do think the failure to affirm LGBT rights does amount to complicity in abortion & other offenses against the sacredness of all lives.
I think it’s all about choosing a lesser of two evils. The child surely is better off with a gay couple than shredded to pieces in abortion. But what difficulties these children will face growing up in such environment we’ll see in the fufure, once they’ve grown up and will share their experiences. I tried to imagine how I would have felt if I had to grow up with 2 mommies and no daddy or 2 daddies and no mommy and I’m sorry, but that just gives me goosebumps at how wrong would that feel…
The child you abort already is yours, but two males create Nothing.
By the adoption logic, I and my ”partner”, the oak tree may someday be legally able to adopt a human child. But that doesn’t mean it is right or moral to do so.
Or me and my three husbands.
Also, by the other logic, what you are saying is a child abuser who gives birth to a child should not be prosecuted because he at least allowed his child to live…….
Both homosexual adoption and abortion are wrong and destructive to the children who are thier victims. One destroys the body, where as the other maims the mind for life.
I have no problem with this either. And I have gay friends with children—their children are happy and well-adjusted. A good friend of mine was raised by a gay couple. I’ve known her since I was 11. We are both adults now. She’s one of the most brilliant and loving and “normal” people I have ever known. Lay off the gays, please. PLEASE. It’s ridiculous. What is “normal” anyway? I’d rather be raised by a loving gay couple than an unhealthy, selfish, negligent hetero couple–ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
What is normal? Really? Simple procreation should answer that.
There is no such thing as “normal.” The judgmental and self-righteous tone of anti-gay pro-lifers makes me almost as sad as pro-aborts. It’s just unbelievable. Why do we care if anyone is gay? Why? Who cares? The bible says not to eat pork and shrimp, either. The bible tells us how to sell our daughters as slaves. In the Hebrew scriptures, men had mistresses and concubines. I believe in the teachings of Jesus, absolutely. He held those who were cast out, he loved them, and cared for them even though they were shunned. He was the fullness of God to humanity, and the fullness of humanity to God. But I cannot align myself with a group of people who think it’s “loving” to tell people they’re not “normal” because they’re different. People do not CHOOSE to be gay. We are finally beginning to understand human sexuality and psychology. There are more important things to worry about here. Babies are dying. Babies are being ripped to shreds and thrown into the garbage, and people want to lecture others about holiness and homosexuality? How is that going to help the pro-life movement? Hey, you don’t have to agree with me, but stop making it an issue in the pro-life community. Form your own little anti-gay groups if you like, but it’s NOT RELATED to abortion, no matter how much you try to make it so.
Mary Lee, I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Mary Lee,
If I were a parent with children in a California public school I would care very much right now. AND be quite vocal about it.
As it stands I purposely stay off threads like this. They go nowhere and keep prolifers fighting which the other side looooovvveees.
Yes, Carla, I’d best stay away from these threads. However, it’s really not a good idea to post them anyway. It’s not helpful to the pro-life movement at all. Maybe it’s something that the anti-gay pro-lifers should learn—to stop bringing it up. It’s useless.
I’m a parent. I’m not afraid of gay parents. Why should I be? Why should ANYONE be?
I agree with that, MaryLee.
I believe in traditional marriage.
I am not afraid of gay parents either.
See you on another thread then? :)
I met two mommies and they raised three children, two boys and one girl. Mommies didn’t teach them immoral things or wrongdoings. Their kids were behaved well! Their kids love their mommies, and they love mommies. Of course, they’re not prefect but the family is no different from traditional families…
Oh, Carla! I forgot one more thing! Then I’ll go, I PROMISE! :)
I’m a big supporter of gay rights, this is true. I’m also a big supporter of animal rights. While I think it’s absolutely horrible to kill and torture animals, and find it sad that many of them exist only to be killed and eaten…..I know there is a difference between being a carnivore and aborting your child. I don’t like ANYONE to be killed, ever. But I do know that a chicken, say, does not have the ability to grow up and do research for science, or write a beautiful opera. Any kind of suffering and killing saddens me greatly….But some of my vegetarian friends put animals higher than unborn children. This makes no sense.
While some of you are carnivores, I would never sit here and lecture you about eating animals. It’s not really pertinent, and will get us nowhere. Abortion is truly the worst thing in humankind, ever. To kill our own babies and throw them away! And in the name of “choice” and “liberty.” That is a far more egregious crime to me than eating animals, and homosexuality (if you believe homosexuality to be a sin). Does that makes sense?
Okay, I’m done! I swear!
I think the problem with the argument. “but we are depriving children of a mother and a father” is that MOST kids don’t have a mother and a father. And it has nothing to do with gay people. Straight people have ruined marriage and families without the gays. And before we tell gay people how ‘unnatural it is for them to raise children without a mother-father household, we should probably tell teenage mothers, single mothers, single fathers, divorcees, widowers, victims of domestic abuse, grandmothers raising their grandchild that they are unnatural too
Mary Lee,
I hear you loud and clear!
Now pinky swear!! :)
With due respect, I believe the issue of homosexual parenting is very much related to the Life issue because 1) many homosexual partners utilize in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and every other unnatural means of conception which only further encourages treating children like commodities to be acquired, bought, and destroyed when the adults choose; 2) homosexual parenting can never be an adequate substitute for a mother and father — children need and deserve both and to purposely deny them a mother or father further destroys the sanctity of the family, which is at the very heart of the fight for Life.
MaryLee, I respectfully disagree that gay parents are not a threat to the family. Anything the breaks down the family that God designed — father, mother and child(ren)– is a threat to all of society. I realize it’s politically incorrect to say so anymore, but homosexuality is in fact, not a normal expression of human sexuality. It is a perversion of sexuality. God made man for woman and woman for man, and no amount of “modern” or “progressive” or “tolerant” sophistry will ever change that. Satan knows full well that the fastest way to destroy human kind is through the sinful perversion of our sexuality, since that’s how the family will be ruined. This sexual sin includes adultery, promiscuity, pornography, and yes, homosexuality.
And before you accuse me of bigotry, hatred or homophobia, the fact is that what I truly fear is sin and it’s disastrous effects. We are living in a modern-day Soddom and Gomorrah, and we are going to pay a terrifying price if we continue down this road of normalizing homosexuality. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
Very well said, Jen!!!
Mary Lee said: I believe in the teachings of Jesus, absolutely… People do not CHOOSE to be gay.
So the only conclusion I can draw from you is that Jesus made them that way. And their preordained disposition is not to procreate, but sexually satisfy themselves, and suffer AIDs etc. Sort of like Judas Iscariot?
Mary Lee – you seriously need to resolve a few things, because what you are believe conflicts with the Word of God.
Please read this article:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Lee-The-Truth-About-The-Homosexual-Rights-Movement.php
It would be a good place to start, prior to continuing a discussion on how homosexuality and abortion are related.
Mary Lee, please quit spouting the “God Hates Shrimp” fallacy. It’s been rebutted time and time again.
Being opposed to same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption is not “anti-gay.” There are various reasons, many of them secular, for these beliefs. Please see this article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy for an excellent exploration of those reasons.
For me, “anti-gay” = Fred Phelps and his ilk. The last time I checked, the VAST majority of those opposed to same-sex marriage and/or same-sex adoption were not calling for homosexuals to be lynched in the streets; on the contrary, the Catholic Church (for example) says that acts of violent malice in word or in action against homosexuals are deplorable and deserve condemnation from Church leaders as well as the faithful (see here, #10). The term “anti-gay” is just as offensive and just as false as the pejorative “anti-choice” often bandied about by pro-abortion folk. Please rethink your language, your prejudices, and your stereotypes.
It’s much easier for those of us who don’t believe in God. We simply recognize the basic humanity of all people, and think gay people should have the same rights to marry and raise children as the rest of us. Thankfully, more and more people, religious and non-religious, are coming around. Those standing in the way of simple justice will have to adjust.
Hal, good luck with that when you meet God in eternity.
I recognize the basic humanity of all people more truly than you do, Hal, because I understand that from the moment humanity came into existence, man was made for woman, and woman for man. Our basic, authentic humanity is unalterable and homosexual sex has nothing to do with it. If it did, you and I would not be here because the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
It is not justice to distort the essence of our humanity.
Shannon said, “Straight people have ruined marriage and families without the gays…”
Very true. The children growing up in heterosexual single-parent or blended homes due to divorce are ignored by the very same Christians who decry gay parenting. Many Christians are bold to speak out against homosexuality but are timid to preach against divorce for fear of offending half their congregations.
The best is for a child to grow up in a two parent family with a mother and a father. But human sin being what it is, there are many reasons why this is not possible for a lot of people. Also, because of human sin, there are traditional families where abuse happens. But I’m not sure the answer is for people who flaunt another kind of sin to raise the children.
Am I for gay rights or not? It depends what rights you’re talking about. I don’t think gays should be abused, assaulted, or shunned. But I also don’t think they should be emualted. As parents they are role models, portraying the gay lifestyle to their children. Is this what we want children learning? Some would say yes. But the gay lifestyle is a very unhealthy lifestyle.
There is a lesbian woman in my swim class. She is 50 years old and looks like 70. She has respiratory problems, even in the summer time. It saddens me that she won’t live as long as she should. I hope she won’t go soon, because I don’t think she’s ready to meet the Lord yet.
Gay people have a much lower life expectancy than straights. That’s even not counting the effects of AIDS. Also, child deaths lower the life expectancy of the general population, but child deaths can’t be counted when figuring out the life expectancy of gays. If a baby dies of SIDS, or a 2 year old drowns, or a 5 year old gets hit by a car, there is no way of knowing if those kids would have grown up gay or not. So child deaths don’t lower the statistical life expectancy of gays, although they do pull down the average for the general population. You’d think this would give gays a huge statistical advantage. But life expectancy for gays is so bad that this advantage is canceled out and gays still end up with a much lower life expectancy than straights. They tend to get the same diseases straights get, but at much higher rates, and earlier in life. Then they die at a younger age. There’s something in the lifestyle that leads to a weaker body constitution. There are excepions to the rule, long lived healthy gays, and straights who die young. We are talking in broad generalities here, and generalities always have exceptions to them.
Face it, the gay lifestyle is an unhealthy lifestyle.
BYW: It’s tough on adults when their parents die. As an adult orphan, I know this. Kids adopted by gays will probably face this earlier in their, hopefully, adult lives.
Hal,
“We simply recognize the basic humanity of all people, and think gay people should have the same rights to marry and raise children as the rest of us.”
Christians don’t? Really?
10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. source
Seems you’re wrong there.
Furthermore, Hal, you don’t recognize the basic humanity of the unborn, nor their right to life, yet you condemn those who, while recognizing the basic humanity of all people, born or unborn, disagree that the “right” to marriage and children is one that should be given, without restrictions, to everyone. That seems rather hypocritical.
The last time I checked, the government had plenty of restrictions on the “right” to marry — the persons in question must be adult, consenting, unrelated, and unencumbered (i.e., no former marriages that weren’t legally dissolved by death or divorce). Do you believe that all of these restrictions should be removed so that “everyone” can have the “right” to marry?
Eric – actually, many Christian institutions (namely, the Catholic Church) has been decrying divorce (specifically, no-fault divorce) since its inception. Society, however, hasn’t listened and we were assured by their propenents that no-fault divorce (and free distribution of and access to contraception) would ensure that families would only become happier and healthier. Those lofty promises did not come to fruition, sadly, and we as a society are paying the price.
One thing may be said for this couple: no abortion will occur because of their lovemaking.
Thanks JoAnna, you are right about the Catholic Church. Some traditional sacramental protestant churches such as Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod also stand against divorce and remarriage, especially when children are involved. Many other denominations, however, attack homosexuality but ignore divorce/remarriage with children.
Sorry guys, the immorality of your position is as clear to me as your view of the immorality of abortion. There is no room for argument. You are wrong. You are very wrong. Because i believe in the basic goodness of most people, I believe that many of you will eventually come around. (I’m specifically waiting for Bobby and Carla). With or without your help, however, we’re moving in the right direction
There is no room for argument. You are wrong.
Yet you won’t accept the same, applied to you, regarding abortion. Why is that? Have you ever considered that you may be just as wrong regarding abortion as you believe those opposed to same-sex marriage are?
I also find it very sad that you are so convinced about the “rightness” of your position that you refuse to investigate the issue further and see what reasons there are for opposition — some of which are quite logical and quite secular. See the article I linked earlier, for example – http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155
How very close-minded and intolerant of you, Hal.
I would have rather been raised by my single lesbian sister (who is doing a fine job raising her daughter, btw), then by my married straight parents. Two parent households don’t equal happiness and safety. Soooo tired of this issue.
This argument that same sex relationships are by definition decadent, morally bankrupt, incapable of nurturing children. etc…well, it doesn’t bode well either for those of us who are in different-sex relationships and cannot conceive because of infertility or age, or do not wish to b/c we prefer to dedicate our energies to other forms of service besides having & raising biological kids.
it’s not *fertility* that matters-it is *love.* I am sick and tired of people who do not grasp this distinction decreeing me and my marriage as “less than” b/c I am long infertile. How much more sick & tired my friends in same-sex relationships must be of the myths about their unions!
Kids need homes. Gay couples need kids. Problem solved. Been saying this for years, and I’ll always say it.
“Kids need homes. Gay couples need kids. Problem solved. Been saying this for years, and I’ll always say it.”
Exactly. I would shudder to think of where my disabled niece (who was languishing in foster care, considered unadoptable) would be if my sister hadn’t opened her home to her.
And for what it’s worth, if anything happens to me and my wife our kids go to my sister. The other choices are my wife’s elderly parents, my abusive parents, or my cult-brainwashed other siblings. Even if gay parents are “less than ideal”, it is much better than the alternatives, most of the time.
Jack,
Yeah, and I would have much rather been raised by my married parents than by my divorced parents, but the proponents of no-fault divorce never took that into consideration. Life isn’t perfect but that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands in despair and allow marriage to be completely re-defined because we’ve managed to muck it up.
xalisae,
Why do gay couples “need” kids? To my knowledge, NO couple “needs” kids. Kids aren’t a commodity or a status symbol, they’re a gift and a blessing.
Marysia,
I’m sorry, who is saying anything about your marriage or your infertility? Apples and oranges. I refer you to this article about Redefining Marriage by Steven Greydanus:
Recently in an online forum a same-sex marriage advocate wrote to me, “I’ve never once had any conservative be able to tell me how the legalization of gay marriage affects, in any measurable way, their relationship with their spouse.”
My response was: “I’ve never once had any same-sex marriage advocate be able to offer a coherent account of what marriage is and is not, and why it is the state should have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying (and decertifying) sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adults in any gender combination.”
So, JoAnna. What do we do with the kids sitting in foster care? You know, the often disabled or minority kids who are not being snatched up by straight couples? People like my sister are quite happy to take these “unadoptable” kids in. I have yet to see anyone propose a workable solution to this.
Jack,
Let me answer your question with a question. Do you believe that gay couples should pursue fostering and adoption instead of utilizing IVF, outsourced surrogates, etc. in order to be parents?
I know a TON of hetero couples who are currently waiting to foster or adopt those so-called “unadoptable” kids, but the endless red tape of the process is stymieing their efforts. That should be the first thing to be overhauled. The second should be the endless merry-go-round of kids being taken away, then put back, then taken away, then put back, etc. Many of my neighbors are foster parents, and the stories they tell about kids they foster, keep for months on end, and then lose again when the kids are put back in toxic home environments with their bio parents (only to reenter the system a few months later) is horrifying.
“Let me answer your question with a question. Do you believe that gay couples should pursue fostering and adoption instead of utilizing IVF, outsourced surrogates, etc. in order to be parents?”
Of course.
And I agree about the foster system. CPS is absolutely corrupt in some states and ineffective in others. The CPS here failed to recognize I was in danger as a kid (while I was in the hospital having surgery after a beating, and the doctor’s reported suspicions of physical and sexual abuse, and neglect), and interviewed me IN FRONT OF MY PARENTS (the abusers) before throwing me back into my home and never checking on me again. One of my friends was in and out of foster care her whole life, and they never terminated her schizophrenic mother’s custody, even after numerous abusive and neglectful incidents. Yeah, the system needs to be fixed. I just will never see the problem with letting gay people adopt. If they can make it through the rigors of the process and are found to be fit, then I don’t see why they cannot adopt.
I have some extended family who are gay, and have a couple gay friends. I love them because Jesus loves them, I pray for them because God cannot look upon sin and they refuse His gift of Salvation.
I worry for the children of gay couples because the statistics are very unfavorable against them. I love my brother-in-law particularly. He’s so sweet and loving, but his chosen lifestyle carries the same statistical risks as intravenous drug abuse. :( I worry for my sister-in-law because statistics show same-sex couples suffer a higher rate of abuse and infidelity. There are many many studies showing the inherent dangers of this lifestyle CHOICE. It is a form of sexual addiction. This has been proven.
Gays have the same rights as anyone else. The idea that they don’t is ludicrous. They don’t need preferential treatment. They don’t need special laws that make it more of a crime to punch my sister-in-law than to punch me! Because it’s not ok to physically assault ANYONE for ANY reason. It is wrong and dangerous to create special protected classes within our society. That’s not “equal”, that’s “preferential”.
I don’t think someone’s sexual life or sexual choices should be the subject of parades, flags, shows, movies, or their identity. I don’t go around parading my straightness or flaming it in peoples faces. Why can’t people keep their bedroom choices to themselves? I don’t care what goes on in there and I don’t want to know. In the simple sentence “I’m gay.” the person outlines everything they do under their sheets. TMI! EW! How about, “I enjoy painting.” or “I want to be a doctor.”??? Isn’t there anything other than their sexual life that defines them? Are they really just an unnatural sexual act???
Marriage is a religious institution. It’s no more ok for a gay couple to insist that a church marry them or that they be married than for me to insist a muslim imam baptize me in Jesus’s name. To insist that a religious institution perform an act that is fundamentally contradictory to that religions precepts is just wrong.
” I worry for the children of gay couples because the statistics are very unfavorable against them. ”
No, studies show that kids raised by gay couples turn out about the same as others.
“It is a form of sexual addiction. This has been proven.”
Um, no it hasn’t.
“It’s no more ok for a gay couple to insist that a church marry them or that they be married than for me to insist a muslim imam baptize me in Jesus’s name. To insist that a religious institution perform an act that is fundamentally contradictory to that religions precepts is just wrong.”
Agreed, you can’t force a church to perform a marriage for those they don’t deem fit. I don’t know any gays who want to force churches to perform anything, though. They would like the legal right to marry. Churches wouldn’t be forced to perform the marriages.
TheChristianHippie ~ Marriage and gay people were around long before Christianity. It happens in nature. There are many gay animals and some that will change sexes if no mates are available in a given area. How can god think being gay is wrong when he invented it? Or are you going to tell me that animals in nature make life style choices…. The battle of Troy might not have even been fought if Hector did not kill Achilles cousin/gay lover… Greatest warrior of his age and he was as gay as they come.
You guys say marriage is a sacred institution… not in America it is not. At any given time there are 4 reality shows on TV selling off marriages for a million dollars that always fall through. Or better yet how about mail order brides? How sacred can this institution be if we trade it for a green card over the internet? Christians do not get to define the official parameters of marriage as it is much older than Jesus or Christianity… We humans are evolving past procreation as we know it. As it is a lesbian couple can have sperm made from bone marrow and have a child that is born with both of the gay parents genes. At some point I would imagine that intercourse and gestation will be deemed too risky for parents and children both and it will all be done in a sterilized laboratory where genes can be screened and purified. We are about to take control of our own evolution as a species.
Lastly I would say that this IS an abortion issue, who has less abortions that gay people? Also if you do not abort you may choose to put the baby up for adoption and we need all the loving adoptive parents we can get. Really it is not like gay people are known for violence or child abuse… Who was the last gay mass murder? All of the mass murderers I can think of were all very religious heterosexual men….
“In the simple sentence “I’m gay.” the person outlines everything they do under their sheets.”
Then by that logic, you’ve just done the very same thing by making an explicit reference earlier in your post to your straightness.
We really don’t need to know what you do under your sheets. Please, keep it to yourself.
Through all sorts of life situations, children are deprived of either a mother or father (or both). But it is the height of selfishness to deliberately deprive them of this whether it’s a gay couple or a single woman who just wants to have a baby now and whether it’s done through IVF or adoption. There’s a difference between making the best of a situation and deliberately creating it.
Denise – gay couples often pursue IVF, so plenty of children are killed in their pursuit of children, though you are correct – no abortions can result from their lovemaking.
I don’t hate gay people. I’m not afraid of them. I feel for the cross they carry, b/c I do think there is a biological aspect to most homosexual inclinations. And the feelings are real for them. I think they should be legally free as consenting adults to do what they want in their bedrooms (ie no criminalization of sodomy and what not). I think they should be able to visit each other in hospital rooms and I believe they have the right to enter into contractual arrangements regarding their assets that should be respected by the courts. But we are doing ourselves a disservice as a society when we pretend that marriage is nothing but a love contract (and I have still not heard a remotely convincing reason why the contract should be limited to 2 or why the two should have to be having a sexual relationship) and when we pretend that a mommy can be a daddy and two mommies = a mommy and a daddy. Someone above said we need to “affirm” this. And that’s what it’s really about. Affirmation that gay = straight and both are normal and both are equally good. Objectively, it’s not so.
In a world run by Biggz, there would be no marriage at all it would just be people who care about each other living together for mutual benefit. If two people want to live together and have children then that is their decision and none of our business.
If a person wanted to marry their horse that would be fine with me and none of my business.
To me marriage should be a personal decision between the people about to be married and you should only be held accountable to those people and not the State.
As for polygamy… If a person really wants 6 wives… they are a braver person than I am that’s for sure and it should be legal to do so as long as all adults are consenting then it is their business.
Homosexuality hurts no one, it is fear and hate that hurts gay people. I am pretty sure Jesus had something to say about hate and acceptance didn’t he?
Marriage should not be legislated or legally binding in any way.
If I died tomorrow I would want my children to be adopted by a gay couple way before a church going Christian family. I do not believe in lying to children to hide the realities of life and I would rather have my children raised in a house where they are free to grow up to be anything they want including gay if they should be so inclined. I do not want my children to be oppressed in any way and religion has been oppressing people since the beginning… just ask Jesus, he was oppressed by religious people right to his death.
All one needs to do is actually SPEND TIME with same sex couples who are lovingly, tenderly raising their children to be caring and responsible adults to know that any “case” against same sex couples adopting is merely a knee-jerk reaction based in fear and misunderstanding. Couples should be evaluated based on their character and ability to care for children, whether that couple is gay or straight. What a shame that some people are still running scared with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears. Gay and straight are both normal and both are equally “good.” Objectively, it is so.
“If a person wanted to marry their horse that would be fine with me and none of my business.”
Pretty sure animals don’t have the capacity to consent to sex with humans.
I guess it is just better to leave these kids in abusive homes where they can be beaten and molested. Or better yet, in orphanages or foster homes where they are nothing but dollar signs?
I have yet to see anything in the news about a same-sex couple abusing, neglecting or molesting their children.
Exactly Jack – the whole beastiality thing is a strawman unless we’re now arguing that an animal = a human in which case everyone on this blog (the pro-lifers at least) need to become vegetarians stat.
But the polygamy issue is real and Biggz, I actually have to applaud your consistency. I do think the state receives tremendous benefits from encouraging traditional marriage, but if we’re throwing up our hands and saying it’s a public declaration of some sort of commitment (possibly monogamous, possibly sexual), then the state should get out of the whole thing. I myself am not willing to give up the fight yet because there’s a lot to lose, but I’d rater see the state admit that it has zero interest in our romantic (or otherwise) entanglements.
Elizabeth:
So you disagree that a mother and father play unique roles in a child’s life and that, in an optimal situation, a child would be raised by his mother and his father? In your scenario there is no unique contribution made by the mother or the father, so it is just a optimal for a child to have one mother or one father or two fathers or three mothers as it is to have a mother and a father.
I’ve spent plenty of time with gay couples, one in particular (family).
CT, each *individual parent* plays a unique role in a child’s life by sheer virtue of being an individual person. In that is the unique contribution… Sometimes these parents are a father and a mother. Sometimes it is a mother and a mother, a father and a father, a grandmother, or an aunt, or any other loving soul who steps up to serve as the caring, nurturing adult in a child’s life. Children are not raised in vacuums; they will also find role models outside the nuclear family. Glad you’ve had a chance to spend time with gay couples. I hope you’ll open your eyes and ears a bit more next time you’re with them. Unless, of course, they, like some heterosexual couples, aren’t stable, responsible, or reliable. Point is, which I made earlier, is that the value as a parent has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation but rather the character of the person himself or herself.
Typo fixed. :)
Joe Mahmah (heh, clever):
Here’s one story about a British gay couple accused of abusing foster kids. The social workers didn’t initially intervene because they were afraid of being branded homophobic.
JackB – there are various studies that indicate otherwise. Here is one; and here is an analysis of current research on the issue showing that some studies may be flawed or biased.
I agree with you that CPS is a flawed system; the story I linked to Joe is definitely one symptom. But I believe they’re doing the best they can with the resources they have at the moment.
just ask Jesus, he was oppressed by religious people right to his death
But he was also raised and surrounded by other religious people who did not oppress him.
JoAnna, thanks for the links. I think more research should be done to resolve the issue. I would like to see more than the abstract for the study, it might be an interesting read.
I don’t know what the point of the abuse story is, though. Men who sexually abuse children are not gay, they are predators. My dad was a married man who was also a pedophile. Doesn’t mean that married men are likely to abuse kids, it just means some are predators. Same thing for gays. There are rotten apples in every bunch.
There are plenty of kids that would do well to have “two daddies” versus what they’ll get otherwise.
Joe Mahmah: I guess it is just better to leave these kids in abusive homes where they can be beaten and molested. Or better yet, in orphanages or foster homes where they are nothing but dollar signs?
I have yet to see anything in the news about a same-sex couple abusing, neglecting or molesting their children.
Well, Joe, you know what they say: “Never say ‘never.'”
But your point is well taken. Witness the hundreds of thousands if not millions of true horror stories of kids in what is technically a “man + woman” home.
Exactly Joan :)
Biggz: Child rape has been around for centuries too, does that mean it’s ok? Murder? Theft? Just because animals and people engage in a behavior it doesn’t make it healthy or “normal”. There are many apes addicted to cigarettes, does that make it “natural” to them? Addiction has been found in many different species, it doesn’t make it “natural”, “normal”, or “healthy” for them to be so.
Jack: Oh, there are studies. Our friend JoAnna has linked to a few.
And same sex partners do in fact want to force churches to marry them. That’s why they’re pushing “gay marriage” in states that already allow them the right to civil unions (the mutually beneficial contract protecting the couples assets). They see civil unions as “not good enough” despite the fact that they are exactly the same weight legally. I don’t care if they draw up a legal contract protecting their assets, assuring their children stay with their “parent” after the other dies (as they tend to do earlier in that lifestyle) or whatever, and affording them the same privileges as married couples, it’s the MARRIAGE part of “gay marriage” that I disagree with. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to those deemed fit by the religion to which that institution belongs. This is really a “freedom of religion” issue. God says sodomy is an abomination and a sin, so there is no way I or any other Christian, as a child of God, can accept it as “normal” “ok” or “equal to” the institution He created the 6th day of creation when He created them male and female.
But your point is well taken. Witness the hundreds of thousands if not millions of true horror stories of kids in what is technically a “man + woman” home.
There are more man + woman homes so it stands to reason that there would be more “true horror stories” coming out of them.
And I would probably not depend on the mainstream media to tell me all about the “hazards of living in a gay household.” If there are any, they either won’t report them or they’ll be significantly downplayed. That should be a no-brainer.
Jack – I posted that news story in response to Joe Mahmah’s statement: “I have yet to see anything in the news about a same-sex couple abusing, neglecting or molesting their children.”
“Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to those deemed fit by the religion to which that institution belongs. This is really a “freedom of religion” issue. God says sodomy is an abomination and a sin, so there is no way I or any other Christian, as a child of God, can accept it as “normal” “ok” or “equal to” the institution He created the 6th day of creation when He created them male and female.”
Uh, Christianity doesn’t own marriage. Most cultures have had many different forms of marriage pre-dating the Bible. And I don’t even get the “one man, one woman” thing, since polygamy is all over the place in the Bible. As the government is issuing marriage licenses, and the government isn’t religion, your argument really doesn’t hold up. Personally, I would prefer it if the government would just issue civil unions to everyone. Then churches could bless and marry whatever couples they see fit, and the government wouldn’t be discriminating against anyone. This circular argument is never going to end, otherwise.
Thanks, JoAnna. I missed Joe’s post, so that story seemed a little out of left field.
Biggz: “How can god think being gay is wrong when he invented it?”
Good grief.
The theology in these parts isn’t very critically reflective, is it?
Seems like every forum on the planet has threads that get derailed with folks charging and counter-charging each other about gay issues. An acquaintance in one forum I frequent retorted with this, which I considered a pretty good summary of my own views (with a couple important exceptions and some things I would add — though I won’t remark them here):
1/ Homosexuals are real people with real lives and we have no political right to discriminate against them or for them in any way. It’s NOT my business nor the business of government to tell consenting adults how to live.
2/ It is also NOT the place of government to give special privileges to any group or business. Face it – the issue of “gay marriage” is all about conferring health insurance, inheritance rights to the married. This inherently discriminates against the non-married. Married people get extra privileges at work and in tax code that singles don’t. Maybe that made sense in an agrarian society; today it’s unfair. Marriage should be a religious institution – and if the Unitarian Gay church want’s to marry Gay’s I have zero objection. Marriage is also a traditional means of assessing child support. That’s barely a problem for gays. If you sign up for adoption or to receive a surrogate – then you should be on the hook for child support. Whether or not gay households are a good environment for predominantly non-gay children to thrive is a separate question and should be evaluated objectively.
3/ I don’t need or want anyone shoving their life-style in my face or in the faces of school children. No one can possible argue that homosexuality isn’t fundamentally not effective in a Darwinian survival reproductive sense. It’s a defect. So like hermaphrodites and others with non-functional defects, we should treat the afflicted with decency and some pity. We should not accept a defect as some alternative equivalent ‘lifestyle’. Several percent of the human population have this defect and deserve decent treatment and foremost political equivalence. It’s entirely possible that this defect (like sickle cell) has some offsetting advantage for the population as a whole. That doesn’t mean anyone needs to accept it moreso than moles, cancer or acne as a fundament and inseparable part of the human condition. If we had a pre-natal pill to cure it, 100% of parents would take it voluntarily. Not a crime, nor an honor or matter of pride.
4/ Isn’t it grossly hypocritical/ridiculous that people speak of gay-lesbian ‘pride’ and then insist it’s biological and not a choice ? I totally get that people with this issue are in need of acceptance and decent treatment, long absent. I reserve pride (and it’s obverse respect) for personal accomplishments and resolution, not for biological fate. Should a blond take ‘pride’ in her hair color or deserve respect for it ? That’s silly. ML.King and Gandi and Mandela deserve respect (and they should have pride) – NOT for their biological condition, but for their constitutions, for accomplishing much with very little. General Anthony McAuliffe, or the Sihks soldiers at the Khyber pass should have pride, and deserve our respect, not for some happenstance of fate, but for amazing fortitude. Gayness as a biological imperative should not engender pride any more than having blue eyes.
1/ yet it seems you do.
2/ equal privileges, not ‘special’ privileges.
“Marriage should be a religious institution” – what the?
3/ and you would shove what in my face and the faces of schoolchildren?
So perhaps the small percentages of people who have something like perhaps cystic fibrosis shouldn’t be allowed to wed either? Being gay is no more defective than being born with red hair.
4/ ‘Pride’ is about showing that there is nothing detrimental or shameful about being born gay. Can’t redheads be proud too?
“2/ It is also NOT the place of government to give special privileges to any group or business.”
Would that include tax credits and subsidies? Doesn’t the government have some kind of justifiable interest in encouraging at least some things that it perceives as beneficial to society? Only the most hardcore libertarian (aka minarchist) would argue otherwise. Married people tend to be healthier and more stable; the government has an interest in promoting health and social stability, so it has an interest in promoting marriage with sweeteners such as tax benefits and inheritance rights.
Joan:
2/ The writer leans more libertarian on that than I, but I’m sympathetic on a federal level. I’d prefer to see subsidies from states, to the extent there are any. Although I’ll wager it’d make it a wild west again for interstate commerce. ;-)
As for subsidizing marriage, no. But child-rearing — yes. If I’m preparing the next generation of cows for The Great Society to milk, I expect folks not engaged in milk production to pay for the product my husbandry provides. Otherwise newlyweds would be sane to reproductively Galt, resulting in demographic winter here as elsewhere. Whither the Ponzi scheme then?
Reality:
3/ Note the writer spoke of this defect in Darwinian terms. Apply some science. Also apply some logic. The writer was indifferent to gay marriage, yet here you infer that his reasoning is denying marriage to classes of people. I’ll presume that again you’re engaging in the “my adversarial interlocutors are so stupid that I don’t need to actually attend to what they say” mode of reading.
4/ The writer’s reasoning is that pride and respect are apropos of accomplishments — not endowments, defects, or the like. From knowing him somewhat, I can say that this is a salutary posture in his case. His endowments are substantial and his achievements are too. He is thankful for — not proud of — his endowments. Obviously YMMV.
We’ve come a long way since MLK had a dream that natural features (such as melanin concentration) should not be the basis on which we judge each other (or ourselves). In the wrong direction, with ubiquitous identity politics.
“If we had a pre-natal pill to cure it, 100% of parents would take it voluntarily.” – rubbish! Being gay is no more a defect than being red-headed. It’s just that the acrimony and hatred against gays has been a lot stronger.
“Pride” is about rejecting the concept of ‘shame’ that those same purveyors of acrimony and hatred have perpetrated.
Voris is 100% correct. To willfully deny a child a mother and a father is child abuse. Any attempts to say otherwise are simply false and silly.
“To willfully deny a child a mother and a father is child abuse. Any attempts to say otherwise are simply false and silly.”
Um no. Child abuse has nothing to do with gays adopting.
An interesting question to those who believe there is nothing contributed by a mother and a father by virtue of their roles (only what any human could contribute), would you respect the right of a religious adoption agency who does feel that a father and mother contribute something uique to the child to run their organization in accordance with that belief?
I would also like to say that the responses here regarding polygamy, non sexual marriages etc seem to prove the point that ‘marriage’ has absolutely no boundaries whatsoever once it becomes merely the state recognizing the activities of consenting adults.
“An interesting question to those who believe there is nothing contributed by a mother and a father by virtue of their roles (only what any human could contribute), would you respect the right of a religious adoption agency who does feel that a father and mother contribute something uique to the child to run their organization in accordance with that belief?”
If it’s a private agency it should have the right to do whatever the agency thinks is moral. If they aren’t getting any tax dollars then it comes down to First Amendment rights of freedom of religion.
Jack- “Personally, I would prefer it if the government would just issue civil unions to everyone. Then churches could bless and marry whatever couples they see fit, and the government wouldn’t be discriminating against anyone.”
Def. agree with you there! :) Sounds like a great “compromise”, but I would be surprised if the LGBT activist community would go for it :(
As for the “Christians don’t hold a monopoly on marriage” thing, why aren’t the LGBT groups targeting Jews and Muslims the same way they are Christianity? They too hold that homosexuality is a sin…….
marriage licenses aren’t marriages, they are legal documents authorizing couples to marry, and not all jurisdictions use them so they aren’t really a useful argument point.
Wow Rasqual! Those points are nearly right on for me too! As long as I take biological defect to mean a predisposition to addictive behavior….. that’s very well written!
“Def. agree with you there! Sounds like a great “compromise”, but I would be surprised if the LGBT activist community would go for it ”
I don’t know if the activists would go for it, but they wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on to argue, because the government has no obligation or right to tell churches what to do.
“As for the “Christians don’t hold a monopoly on marriage” thing, why aren’t the LGBT groups targeting Jews and Muslims the same way they are Christianity? They too hold that homosexuality is a sin…….”
I would wager it’s because we are a Christian majority nation. The anti-gay marriage groups are generally Christian based.
I’m curious, do Christians consider marriages (like me and my wife’s) performed by a justice of the peace invalid?
No, Jack.
Reality, why is it that the purported ignorant religionist (moi) has to keep prodding your science-centered brain that the writers point was an evolutionary defect.
Do you deny that if gayness is genetic, it’s an evolutionary defect?
What’s the prime mover of evolution, Reality?
It’s so ridiculous to have to school the atheists in their own religion. ;-)
Can you explain how red hair makes it impossible to pass along your genes?
What proportion of gays pass along their genes using artificial means?
As he said and I concur — from a Darwinian standpoint, it’s a defect.
There are more man + woman homes so it stands to reason that there would be more “true horror stories” coming out of them.
Kel, indeed. My point is only that man + woman in no way is a “magic bullet” for ensuring kids have good homes.
_____
And I would probably not depend on the mainstream media to tell me all about the “hazards of living in a gay household.” If there are any, they either won’t report them or they’ll be significantly downplayed. That should be a no-brainer.
There may be some of that at work, yeah. In the end this is going to be like interracial dating and marriage – at the time there were people crying and moaning and flapping their arms and hands like the world was at an end; later on, things settled down.
I have no problem with this either. And I have gay friends with children—their children are happy and well-adjusted. A good friend of mine was raised by a gay couple. I’ve known her since I was 11. We are both adults now. She’s one of the most brilliant and loving and “normal” people I have ever known. Lay off the gays, please. PLEASE. It’s ridiculous. What is “normal” anyway? I’d rather be raised by a loving gay couple than an unhealthy, selfish, negligent hetero couple–ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
Nice post, Mary Lee. There’s fear of “the unknown at work,” and I think this will dissipate over time. Households with two gay guys, statistically, are likely to have more resources to help the kids along, and they certainly should be motivated to be good parents – this is obviously a conscious choice on their part.
Carla: As it stands I purposely stay off threads like this. They go nowhere and keep prolifers fighting which the other side looooovvveees.
Carla, my best arguments have been with other pro-choicers. Honestly, it’s not that I “love” pro-lifers to debate each other, it’s just that a good discussion can arise regardless of the participants.
Xalisae: Kids need homes. Gay couples need kids. Problem solved. Been saying this for years, and I’ll always say it.
:: applause ::
JoAnna, to Hal: Yet you won’t accept the same, applied to you, regarding abortion. Why is that? Have you ever considered that you may be just as wrong regarding abortion as you believe those opposed to same-sex marriage are?
In the case of two gay guys adopting, there isn’t anything like the counter-argument as is applied to abortion. Is it really “better,” somehow to leave kids in foster homes or state care (or other, even worse situations), versus letting gay guys adopt? I see this as not all that big of an issue, and one that will decline rapidly in importance.
Meanwhile, though I realize you see nothing that’s “good” enough to justify abortion, the issues of bodily autonomy and the liberty of pregnant women *are* of huge import, and not likely to fade away.
Doug, I am happy for you.
I don’t want to discuss this topic with fellow prolifers that I disagree with. I used to and now I don’t.
As it stands that is my personal opinion. :)
Rasqual: Married people get extra privileges at work and in tax code that singles don’t. Maybe that made sense in an agrarian society; today it’s unfair. Marriage should be a religious institution – and if the Unitarian Gay church want’s to marry Gay’s I have zero objection. Marriage is also a traditional means of assessing child support. That’s barely a problem for gays. If you sign up for adoption or to receive a surrogate – then you should be on the hook for child support. Whether or not gay households are a good environment for predominantly non-gay children to thrive is a separate question and should be evaluated objectively.
Very well said. Rasqual, you’re a great addition to this board.
_____
No one can possible argue that homosexuality isn’t fundamentally not effective in a Darwinian survival reproductive sense. It’s a defect. So like hermaphrodites and others with non-functional defects, we should treat the afflicted with decency and some pity. We should not accept a defect as some alternative equivalent ‘lifestyle’. Several percent of the human population have this defect and deserve decent treatment and foremost political equivalence. It’s entirely possible that this defect (like sickle cell) has some offsetting advantage for the population as a whole. That doesn’t mean anyone needs to accept it moreso than moles, cancer or acne as a fundament and inseparable part of the human condition. If we had a pre-natal pill to cure it, 100% of parents would take it voluntarily.
I think the jury is still out on whether it’s really a genetic thing and/or the extent of the “nature” component versus the “nurture.” That said, if a person has always been attracted to the same sex, versus the opposite sex, what’s to argue about?
As for it being a “defect,” I would agree – on the Darwinian level. We have so many genes and cells that we are full of defects, and good point about there being some possible offsetting advantage, perhaps. If anything, there, with population pressure and our effect on the world, it may be that in the end we’re our own worst enemy, and less population rather than more may extend our run.
“If it’s a private agency it should have the right to do whatever the agency thinks is moral. If they aren’t getting any tax dollars then it comes down to First Amendment rights of freedom of religion”
I don’t see why a religious organization should be excluded from applying for grants if the government is truly neutral about religion (no implementing or impeding it). Otherwise the government is adopting the value judgement that a mother and father offer nothing to a child that is not obtained by any grouping of adult caretakers.
Also, I keep seeing the “better than being abused or in foster care” argument. Assuming there’s something to the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument, gay couples are not exclusively or even primarily adopting older, adoptable foster children or sibling groups that fall into the ‘we are short on adoptive homes for these kids’ category. Largely they are adopting from the pool of infants and young children for whom the number of adoptive parents FAR exceeds the number of children needing homes. So I don’t think this argument is that relevant.
I definitely agree with the people in the camp of wanting the government to issue civil unions to all couples, and allowing the church to bless/ordain whatever marriages they see fit. Some churches/pastors won’t marry a previously divorced person, etc. Churches absolutely have the right not to marry a gay couple.
As far as adoption… I don’t know. It seems like a sticky issue but as it has been pointed out, some gay couples are probably better than some straight couples.
(though please do not fall for the crap that all gay or lesbian couples are more stable or loving. They’re not. I’ve got a lesbian family member who is the most unstable/creepy person I know, not because of what she does in the bedroom but because of who she is as a person).
I understand that gay sexual acts are a sin – but isn’t lying? Isn’t promiscuity also just as destructive to the family? Isn’t lying/stealing just as destructive to spouses’ relationships? Isn’t abuse and violence a sin that tears apart the fabric of the family? Not sure why we Christians seem to hold homosexuality as this ‘sin-above-all-sins’ type of thing. Yes, it is a sin. But so are other things that we engage in on a day-to-day basis. How many Christian men are addicted to porn? That’ll tear apart a family real fast.
I don’t think homosexual activity is the sin above all sins. All the things you mentioned will absolutely tear a family apart also. And sin depends so much on the heart of the individual – something that seems very minor can be a terrible offense against God if committed with intent by someone who knows better. Thank God, we don’t have to judge people’s hearts. God took the hard job. :-)
However, we are still equipped to judge an action right from wrong. We live in a time when there is a push to make homosexual acts normal. To call anyone who thinks it is sinful a bigot or “heteronormative’ bigots (a personal favorite). To adopt hate speech laws that make it a crime to express the view that homosexual behavior is sinful. To make governments enforce and affirm this normalcy in their marriage and adoption laws and exclude from official participation any who believe that a traditional family unit is optimal and should be sought whenever possible. We can’t let our compassion for homosexual people confuse and silence us into acquiescence with this effort.
I understand why Carla bows out of these arguments. My disagreements with pro-lifers here in no way diminish my respect for their pro-life work. But I do feel obligated lend my voice to what I believe to be the truth.
I understand that gay sexual acts are a sin – but isn’t lying? Isn’t promiscuity also just as destructive to the family? Isn’t lying/stealing just as destructive to spouses’ relationships? Isn’t abuse and violence a sin that tears apart the fabric of the family? Not sure why we Christians seem to hold homosexuality as this ‘sin-above-all-sins’ type of thing. Yes, it is a sin. But so are other things that we engage in on a day-to-day basis. How many Christian men are addicted to porn? That’ll tear apart a family real fast.
All sin separates us from God – lying, stealing, and so forth. But 1 Corinthians 6 makes it clear that when we sin sexually, we sin against our own bodies. Also, when giving instructions to the new Gentile believers, the rules the apostles put forth for them were to abstain from eating blood and to flee sexual immorality. So, there is something unique about sexual sin.
In my opinion (and in Jesus Christ’s opinion, as well – Matt. 5:28), pornography is adultery.
I do not believe that homosexuality is any more or less destructive a sin than any other type of sexual sin between people of the opposite sex. It all flies in the face of the extremely holy, intimate, procreative nature of sex.
Yuck. Nasty, judemental people. If you arent being adopted by a gay couple, what do you care? How is this hurting YOU?
Im trying to figure out where ADOPTION of children into Gay relationships plays into the Pro-life movement. We want women who dont choose abortion to choose adoption but then we dont want those willing to adopt to have that choice because of their choice in a partner?
Im pro-life which means I believe in adoption rights for EVERYONE who wants to take on the role as a parent because another made the choice not to!
There are an awfully lot of children who need permanent homes (right here in the USA) and an awful lot of pro-life, anti-gay, Christian couples who are NOT adopting them, and yet ARE blasting gay couples AND heterosexual (or gay) *single* people FOR adopting them. Am I the only person who thinks there is something very wrong with that picture?
Here is another take on it: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/16/my-take-on-adoption-christians-should-put-up-or-shut-up/
After reading through the comments to this point, I agree with Len, early in the thread. How is this a productive post in light of what this column usually discusses, which is abortion?
Mae – you’re not seeing the correct picture. First – not every child in the foster care system is available for adoption. Parental rights need to be terminated first. Second, there are a subset of children in the system for whom there are not enough adoptive families. These are older children (usually over 5 or 6), sibling groups, and severely disabled children of all ages. For the other subset of adoptions – infants and very young children from the foster care system – the number of adoptive families FAR outpaces the number of children to the tune of tens of thousands of waiting families (that’s on the low end of estimated). The only way the “better someone than no one” argument makes sense is if you have some evidence that gay couples are adopting disproportionately from the first group rather than the second. I have not seen any evidence of this.
I suppose single mother Mia Farrow should not have adopted all those special needs children and provided them with the love and care they would otherwise have not known.
Not to mention the gay couple who opened their home and hearts to AIDS infected children that no one wanted.
In the perfect world there is a mother and father. In the real world there are any number of situations far more horrific for children to be raised in than a gay household. For heaven’s sake gay parents are as old as the human race. Somehow we continue to survive.
Mary,
Good intentions don’t negate objective truth or morality.
You seem to think that gay couples are the ONLY people who ever adopt AIDS or HIV infected children. I can assure you that’s not accurate.
As CT said above, “there are a subset of children in the system for whom there are not enough adoptive families. These are older children (usually over 5 or 6), sibling groups, and severely disabled children of all ages” [including those infected with HIV or AIDS]. “For the other subset of adoptions – infants and very young children from the foster care system – the number of adoptive families FAR outpaces the number of children to the tune of tens of thousands of waiting families (that’s on the low end of estimated). The only way the “better someone than no one” argument makes sense is if you have some evidence that gay couples are adopting disproportionately from the first group rather than the second. I have not seen any evidence of this.”
To willfully deny a child a mother and a father is child abuse. Any attempts to say otherwise are simply false and silly.
Thank you JoAnna, I don’t know how to state it any more clearly.
Mary, you say “In the perfect world there is a mother and father” which would indicate that a gay couple or single person should be considered for adoption only when a mother and father are not available.
I’m just confused at the argument being made. Is a mother a father and 2 mommies a mother and father and two daddies the same as two mommies and any amalgamation of adult(s) an equally good environment for children? If that’s your argument, then make that argument. If your argument is that gay couples are better than foster care and state institutions and thus should be eligible to adopt from the pool of children lacking adoptive homes, then the ‘better than nothing’ argument becomes relevant. But it seems like everyone is trying to argue that a gay couple = a straight couple and at the same time argue that sure it’s not ideal (but I thought it was equal) but it’s better than nothing (with no evidence that gay couples are adopting primarily from the pool of children without alternatives).
JoAnna,
I no more suggested only gay couples adopt AIDS and HIV infected children than I suggested that only single female celebrities adopt special needs children.
I’m not arguing better someone than no one. I’m arguing that children who need love and care are getting it and I seriously doubt they care about the marital status or sexual preference of the people who give it them.
Throughout history gay people married and produced children. Some came out later as gay, no longer able to live a lie. Gasp, these children had a gay parent!
Maybe the gay parent was widowed without ever coming out. Gasp, the child is now raised by a single gay parent. Probably has happened more than we could ever begin to guess.
CT 3:49PM
I’m arguing that there are far more horrific situations, i.e. abuse, abandonment, in prisons, whorehouses, etc. where children can end up being raised or discarded to than being raised by gay parents.
They could wind up with a heterosexual father like Charlie Sheen who has porn stars helping him raise his kids.
With due respect, I believe the issue of homosexual parenting is very much related to the Life issue because 1) many homosexual partners utilize in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and every other unnatural means of conception which only further encourages treating children like commodities to be acquired, bought, and destroyed when the adults choose;
Many straight parents do this too.
I would like for every child to have a loving mother and father but many don’t. Remember the goal for children is PERMANENCY. Would you rather see a child in a stable home with a same-sex couple or shuffled from foster home to foster home (as I mentioned before, there are many good foster homes, but children need a “forever family.”) I would chose the former.
Hi phillymiss,
Amen and thank you. I can remember reading that at one time a single black woman wanting to adopt would have been laughed right out of an adoption agency. How many children languished in foster care and lost the opportunity of a loving parent, stable home and extended family because of some absurd prejudice?
BTW, I wonder of Octomom is gay or straight.
Talk about treating children like commodities.
Look when it comes to adoption I only care that they be decent parents and nothing more. Children need parents not just strait parents.
SO forgetting that not letting gay couples adopt is blatant discrimination, I must ask what can strait parents teach children that gay parents cannot? Is it simply that most gays are not Christian? What makes strait parents so great?
61% of children murdered under the age of five were murdered by their heterosexual parents.
So what is it that gay parents cannot do as well as strait parents?
The thing that is so odd about such discussions is that gays already are able to adopt etc., and they comprise a tiny tiny fraction of those seeking to adopt.
it is kind of like the joke about the used lottery tickets. There is only slightly less chance of winning than before.
“Reality, why is it that the purported ignorant religionist (moi) has to keep prodding your science-centered brain that the writers point was an evolutionary defect.” – his opinion isn’t science based so your prodding isn’t appealing to my science-centered brain.
“Do you deny that if gayness is genetic, it’s an evolutionary defect?” – it is a genetic variation. It is no more a defect than hair color, eye color, intellectual capacity or height.
“What’s the prime mover of evolution, Reality?” – to achieve a state of existence where any particular species has developed the optimal features to survive.
“It’s so ridiculous to have to school the atheists in their own religion. ” – science is not a religion.
“Can you explain how red hair makes it impossible to pass along your genes?” – it doesn’t, but there are other genetic variations which do.
“What proportion of gays pass along their genes using artificial means?” – none, yet. But perhaps the point of homosexual genes is as a contributory means of reducing population growth to some extent to assist in the survival of the human species.
“As he said and I concur — from a Darwinian standpoint, it’s a defect.” – no, it’s a variation.
Do you think that heterosexual people who are born with a genetic variation which precludes procreation should not be allowed to marry?
I volunteer with a special needs baseball team. One of the children has lesbian parents who obviously adopted him as he is a different race. The child is severely challenged and I doubt he cares or has any understanding of what the sleeping arrangements of his parents are. He is obviously loved and well cared for. The lesbian couple is there in the stands for every game to support and cheer him.
I still say it’s a false dichotomy being set up between permitting gay adoptions and children not being adopted unless they are adopting the children without alternatives. If they are adopting an infant and thousands of other mother father families would take the child then is there a problem with showing a preference for what you admit is the “ideal”?
Also of COURSE gay people have children (from previous marriages, from forays with the opposite sex- whatever). Children also grow up in broken homes, in divorce, with single parents. People make the best of bad situations all the time, but the argument being made here (intermittently) is that there’s nothing ideal about a mother-father dual parent home. That there’s no reason to prefer it over the others, to encourage it in policy, or to make every effort to adopt children into that situation. But then you defend it by saying these kids could be adopted to serial killers or crazy people or sit in institutions (which isn’t true for the majority of kids being adopted) so gay couples aren’t so bad? I don’t get the argument you guys are making.
Hi CT,
The argument I am making is that there is the ideal world, and there is the real world.
Was a black child remaining in foster care preferable to adoption by a single black woman?
Are special needs children not better off with people who love and care for them, whatever their sexual orientation or marital status, i.e. Mia Farrow and the gay men I mentioned who cared for AIDS infected children.
Please directly quote me saying these children would be adopted to serial killers or sit in institutions. Over the course of human history children have been raised in whorehouses, asylums, and prisons and still are in some parts of the world, conditions I would consider far more horrific than having gay parents.
In this country we have unwanted children living on the streets. Would I find a stable gay home preferable to this? Absolutely.
Mary my point is just that you can’t argue that gay parents are perfectly equal to the ideal (in which case there is no ‘ideal’ – we should be totally indifferent to any amalgamation of competent adults caring for children) and simultaneously argue that gay parents aren’t the ideal but they’re better than nothing. In one argument they are exactly the same and in the other the are inferior to a mother father household but better than an institution or being adopted to an unfit heterosexual couple (the serial killer example was mine – didn’t intend it as a quote).
If you’re making the first argument you don’t need the second. If you’re making the second argument, then you are acknowledging a difference between the ‘ideal’ and a gay couple (who you presumably think is a good alternative, in ‘the real world’). However, it would seem to follow that you would not object to an adoption agency showing a preference for married couples, especially when thousands of married couples stand ready to offer the child a mother-father household- and only consider gay couples when the ‘ideal’ is not available (ie – the hard to adopt populations I mentioned).
Since I DO think you (and other posters bringing up the no alternative argument) would object to such a preference being shown, I’m trying to understand your view. Especially in light of the fact that there is NO evidence that gay couples are primarily adopting kids who have no alternative. They, with some exceptions, adopt from the pool of children with THOUSANDS of alternatives. So what is it? Is there an ideal or isn’t there? Do we prefer married couples when available or not?
Another aspect to my point is when pro-choicers make the claim that there’s no one to adopt unwanted children, we (rightly) correct them in the error of their thinking and point out that except in the cases of older children and sibling groups and certain severe disabilities that require parents with experience in special care, there are not too few adoptive parents, but too many! Suddenly when it comes to gay couples adopting children, we have a severe shortage of adoptive homes? It’s not true unless gay couples are adopting from that pool of underserved children, which they primarily are not.
CT 11:19PM,
I have made no such arguments. I also think you’re making this more complicated than what it is. I talk only of the real world. Are all heterosexual parents so ideal? No. The lesbian couple caring for the severely challenged child of crack addicts, or the single man who adopted a child severely brain damaged by his father’s abuse, will tell you that.
In high school we were told this account of the London Blitz during WW2. Evacuating the cities meant sending the children of prostitutes,drug addicts, drunks, street people, etc. to the countryside for their own safety. Everyone thought it was wonderful these children to finally get away from such terrible circumstances and not the most fit parents, mostly mothers. The clean country air and 3 meals a day would do wonders after living in the dirty city under who knows what circumstances.
Yet nine out or ten of those children cried themselves to sleep every night. They wanted their mothers, they wanted to go home. Many of the children became severely depressed and withdrawn.
What makes a home and a family may be more a matter of perspective than it is an ideal.
“Are all heterosexual parents so ideal? No”.
Of course not everyone of them is perfect, but they are better.
Also here’s an interesting conversation for those arguing that prolifers haven’t done enough http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdzisJJJ-W0&feature=player_embedded
Mary, your WWII story emphasizes a point that many churches fail to acknowledge — children need their parents; and divorce involving children is a crime against them. Parents that aren’t “happy” and separate their children from one or the other parent through divorce are selfish and narcissistic. As JoAnna pointed out, the Catholic Church takes a stand against this, but more churches should follow.
“ ‘Reality, why is it that the purported ignorant religionist (moi) has to keep prodding your science-centered brain that the writers point was an evolutionary defect.’ – his opinion isn’t science based so your prodding isn’t appealing to my science-centered brain.”
Geez…
How would you know; his basis, Reality? You have no warrant for stating that. You’re asserting that, apparently, from his total silence on the matter. You don’t KNOW what his opinion is based on. He didn’t say. You have no empirical evidence of his basis, yet you opine. So you make this big pretense of being Mr. Science, yet you gratuitiously opine without evidence. I had thought that’s the kind of idiotic thing only people of faith engage in. What’s up with that?
Frankly, though, the scientific basis of his remark would be obvious to anyone — except a poseur like you:
“ ‘Do you deny that if gayness is genetic, it’s an evolutionary defect?’ – it is a genetic variation. It is no more a defect than hair color, eye color, intellectual capacity or height.”
Really? So you think hair color is as much an impediment to reproduction as being gay — from a Darwinian perspective?
Wow, Reality. Just…wow.
“ ‘What’s the prime mover of evolution, Reality? ‘ – to achieve a state of existence where any particular species has developed the optimal features to survive.”
Where on earth did you come up with that junior high level quiz answer? It’s difficult to infer what question it’s a bad answer to, but it’s not even a bad answer to mine. An answer that begins with “to achieve” seems concerned with a goal, purpose, or outcome — a concern entirely unrelated to my question.
The prime mover of evolution is reproduction, Reality.
Gays don’t reproduce. That was my acquaintance’s insanely obvious point about gayness being a Darwinian defect. Evolution depends on reproduction. Without reproduction, you have no evolution.
“ ‘It’s so ridiculous to have to school the atheists in their own religion.’ – science is not a religion.”
Then you should engage in science, instead of a religious doppelganger masquerading as it.
Good heavens, are you really this obtuse:
“ ‘Can you explain how red hair makes it impossible to pass along your genes?’ – it doesn’t, but there are other genetic variations which do.”
Yes. Like being gay.
“ ‘What proportion of gays pass along their genes using artificial means?’ – none, yet.”
WHAT? Geez, even when I toss you a bone you don’t know it for a bone. Yes, gays are reproducing artificially. There’ve been innumerable surrogate births that pass along genes from both gays and lesbians. These used to make the news when it was a new thing. The point I would have made if you’d chewed the bone at all was that these instances are rare relative to the gay proportion of the human gene pool, and thus even with artificial reproduction gayness remains a Darwinian defect.
“But perhaps the point of homosexual genes is as a contributory means of reducing population growth to some extent to assist in the survival of the human species.”
Wow. Just…wow. A complete non sequitur. The presence of non-reproducing gays (thus, not contributing to variation in the species in the next generation) who compete for resources is a net loss for survival. They contribute nothing to variation in the pool while taking from available resources. Ergo, Darwinian defect.
Furthermore, your “the point of” locution is sophomoric. It’s using telic language where you’re only entitled to use descriptive language — if, that is, you wish to be scientific and not mystical.
Meanwhile, you’ve just claimed that [perhaps] homosexuals exist, from a Darwinian perspective, to ensure the survival (reproduction) of the rest of us. Their value is that the rest of us thrive.
Brilliant corner to [perhaps] paint yourself into.
“Hey, Bruce, I couldn’t have had kids without you being gay and having none! Thanks bud, I owe ya one!”
Good grief.
Or a variant: “Our kids never would have made it through college, gotten a job, and started a family themselves* without ya, Bruce! Thanks!”
Just how is whatever reproducing straight person’s gene that leads to a genetic disposition in their offspring for gayness, SELECTED FOR IN ANY WAY under your theory?
*(the necessary end, if Bruce’s existence is ensuring the survival (aka, reproduction) of others)
Mary Said: “In the perfect world there is a mother and father. In the real world there are any number of situations far more horrific for children to be raised in than a gay household.”
If that doesn’t say mother-father is the ideal and other situations (including gay couples in your book) are less than ideal but suitable alternatives in the ‘real world’ then I admit I have no idea what you’re saying unless you are really trying to make the argument that there is no ideal and any competent grouping of adults is an equally good parental situation.
On an individual level heterosexual parents may be good or bad. But in a broad sense they are the ideal (as you yourself admit – I think – though you never say why they are ideal and why other situations are less than ideal.). I live in the real world too and in the real world the fact of the matter is that MOST children have thousands of mother-father couples willing to welcome them into their families. I’m sorry if you don’t like the facts, but those ARE the facts. For most young children (including children of different races and with minor to moderate health issues), there is no shortage of dual parent adoptive households. So why would we purposely deprive children of the opportunity to have what would be available in a perfect world?
With due respect I don’t think I’m making it complicated, but several people have made the argument that gay couples are adopting kids who need homes and that it’s better to be with a gay couple than in the foster care system. I don’t buy that they are adopting from that population of children, in the main. So their presence in the pool of adoptive parents, for the most part, only serves to deprive children of a mother and father parental unit, not get them out of the foster system. If you think that one is just as good as the other, then I think we can say that (as Biggz and Elizabeth did) and leave off the stories about children being without homes without gay couples. B/c, with few exceptions, that’s not reality.
Reality: I think you’re letting your existential concerns compromise your scientific disinterest.
I’m speculating entirely (in contrast with your unwarranted claiming to know what’s going on in other people’s heads), but I’d guess that your active refusal to acknowledge that gayness is a Darwinian defect is on account of a felt social need to deny a more generic implication of “defectiveness” for gays. Thus your felt need (I’m theorizing) to remind that from a standpoint of defectiveness in a social sense, we should see gays as no different than blondes. This is why despite the question being whether gayness is a Darwinian defect, your replies have elided the modifier Darwinian every time. You’re not denying what my acquaintance affirms (and which I take as an obvious truth, if we take our science seriously) — you’re denying something else entirely and wishing that what I’m affirming would, as a consequence, disappear as something you’re obliged to acknowledge.
But equivocation is not a rebuttal, Reality. Avoiding the issue is not dealing with it.
Final comment: I was reading over your comments to see if I had missed something you said, and I think you might have an incorrect view of the way modern adoptions work. I also think my position might be more clear if I answer your specific scenarios.
“Was a black child remaining in foster care preferable to adoption by a single black woman?” Relatively healthy children of any color under the age of five who aren’t in sibling groups usually don’t stay in the foster care system long enough to be listed on the waiting kids website once parental rights are terminated. They are adopted that fast. Race is not behavior and no one should be excluded on that factor. I would say that a a two -parent household should be preferred over a single parent when available.
“BTW, I wonder of Octomom is gay or straight.
Talk about treating children like commodities.”
Absolutely she does! IVF (and surrogacy etc) turn children into objects under contract. But she didn’t adopt her kids. This debate is about adoption.
“I’m arguing that there are far more horrific situations, i.e. abuse, abandonment, in prisons, whorehouses, etc. where children can end up being raised or discarded to than being raised by gay parents.They could wind up with a heterosexual father like Charlie Sheen who has porn stars helping him raise his kids.”
This was what prompted my serial killer comments. Gay parents are better than a whorehouse, prison, abuse, or Charlie Sheen. That’s a ringing endorsement. But the choice in an adoptive situation isn’t gay parent or whorehouse. It’s usually gay parents or straight parents. I’m not saying crazy people don’t get approved for adoption or fostering (gay and straight) b/c they absolutely do, but the screening process for adoption would probably weed out a whore house, prison, or even Charlie Sheen.
“Yet nine out or ten of those children cried themselves to sleep every night. They wanted their mothers, they wanted to go home. Many of the children became severely depressed and withdrawn.”
We’re not talking about forcibly removing children from their gay parents. Your example shows that children can love parents who are horribly unfit. We’re talking about putting children in the best situation from the getgo when we have the opportunity to do so. If an infant was available for adoption would you give him/her to the drug addicts and prostitute in the city or the mothers in the countryside?
Hi Eric,
I wanted to make the point that how children perceive their situations and how we as adults perceive them can be entirely different. We assume to know what is “best” for a child,i.e. away from a supposedly less than perfect parent and situation, while a child may see the situation differently.
Hi CT,
I will try to sum this up. It is being said that the two parent home, mother and father is best. OK. In the ideal world every child has a two parent heterosexual home. Gay people shouldn’t be parents, children should have two parents, etc.
I’m pointing out that in the real world this is simply not the case and a two parent heterosexual home is no guarantee of anything. A gay couple or single parent may well provide a far more stable and loving home.
My reference to the single black woman is my post to phillymiss. A black woman once claimed that any black woman attempting to adopt was laughed out of the adoption agency. From what I have seen, the rules are loosening up and more black children are being adopted. There was a program on TV and in People Magazine concerning the members of a black church, including single women and married couples, who made an effort to provide loving adoptive homes to black children, many in foster care. One little boy was overjoyed to finally be adopted by a single woman and have a home and family at last. Apparently he found this woman and her home far preferable to foster care. For this child it was a definite step up. Would a two parent home have been preferable? Maybe. But this little boy wouldn’t trade his adoptive mother for anything.
There have always been gay parents and always will be. When I point out the horrific conditions that some children live in, then and now, I only say that there are far worse things that could happen to children than having gay or single parents. I am not suggesting that even gay parents would be better or that this is giving them a “ringing endorsement”. Children were born in whorehouses and prisons and raised there, they were dumped into asylums. It still happens in parts of the world.
Compared to what children have endured and survived, and do now, having gay parents would seem pretty trivial a concern.
For heaven’s sake CT, the WW2 story was to emphasize that children do not necessarily perceive as we adults, who assume we always know best, do. Its not a suggestion that children be taken from gay parents. We may perceive a child’s home and parental situation as less than desirable, to the child that is their home and their parent is their parent. The child may perceive the parent as loving, we may assume the parent is unfit.
Who would I give the child to? Probably the mother in the countryside. But then, do I know she would not be abusive? Do I know that child will grow up loved and cared for? Do I know this will be a loved and well adjusted child? No. I’m just making that assumption based on my own bias and hoping I am correct.
For some reason, those children desperately wanted to return to the mothers and homes that adults perceived as less than ideal.
“How would you know; his basis, Reality?” – riiight. The claim that homosexuality is a defect is self-evident of science not being his basis. Just like the almost totally unscientific ramblings in the linked clip.
“So you think hair color is as much an impediment to reproduction as being gay” – I’ve already said no, do try to keep up. I also raised the possibility that “perhaps the point of homosexual genes is as a contributory means of reducing population growth to some extent to assist in the survival of the human species.” which is not a whole lot different to your “It’s entirely possible that this defect (like sickle cell) has some offsetting advantage for the population as a whole.”
“The prime mover of evolution is reproduction” – and unless it can survive in it’s environment, evade it’s predators, resist disease etc. etc. how does it get to reproduce? Starving animals don’t reproduce. Animals fighting for their lives don’t reproduce. Reproduction itself instils the traits which best allow “the optimal features to survive” for any particular species in it’s environment. Hence the possible curtailing of the overall level of reproduction of a species such that it doesn’t deplete it’s environment.
“Hey, Bruce, I couldn’t have had kids without you being gay and having none! Thanks bud, I owe ya one!” – this may well be what evolution is doing. It isn’t just about rampant procreation you know.
“Yes. Like being gay.” – yes. And again, I ask do you think that heterosexual people who are born with a genetic variation which precludes procreation should not be allowed to marry?
This discussion usually leads to long discourses about how wonderfully healthy “homosexual parents” are for children, but you want to talk about the ULTIMATE OXYMORON, putting the words “homosexual” and “parents” in the same phrase is INCONCEIVABLE (pun intended). For those who consider themselves “prolife” (I really am not addressing the pro-aborts who post here) I think it is hi-jacking the word PROLIFE to embrace anything any 2 people want to concoct into being a “family I think you are sorely deceived. “The Homosexual Agenda” by Alan Sears and Criag Osten meticulously exposes and destroys the myth that homosexual activist simply want equal rights they have b een working for years to dismantle and redefine the word ”family”, first via entertainment and now with political activism. The attack is only beginning but they are coming after every Christian religious institution, faith-based social service organization and baith-based business in this nation who believes or teaches that homosexuality is “sin”. The cosponsors of the civil-union bill in Illinois stated in a press conference before the bill passed that “this is only the first step toward us getting marriage” and as soon as the bill was signed they proceeded to go after the faith-based social service organizations although there was supposed to be protections for these organizations but you “ain’t seen nothing yet”. They are just warming up for the fight to dismantle everything and everyone that does not embrace and celebrate perverion. Their plan is to silence every church that will dare to teach God’s standard. You will be maligned, hated and persecuted, if ”Christians think they are not coming for you next, talk to the ministers, churches and businesses that have been attaked for not “sucking up” to them in Canada and the UK. If you think slaughtering babies in the womb is the only thing that is “anti-life” and that “homosexual marriage (which is impossible anatomically, physiologically, hormonally and immuniologically as well as spiritually) and “homosexual parents” are a good alternative lifestyle you are indeed deceived.
Great post Prolifer L.
You would think that the fact that the mass majority of proaborts support the homosexual agenda would be enough for prolifers to sincerely spend time questioning it.
The agenda of anyone who supports the slaughter of humans should be seriously looked at. There are reasons so many who support this slaughter also support certain lifestyles. It is all a part of the culture of death.
Many are indeed deceived.
I am a woman of God. I was born and raised by two loving, devoted, Christian parents. I am very much a Conservative Republican amd pro-life. But I simply cannot agree with the ideas that being Gay is a choice, nor do I agree that children being raised by gay parents is any more detrimental than those being raised by single parents or divorced parents. Why would any person choose to go against God’s will (or what we believe to be His will)? Why would one choose to be ridiculed and hated?
My biggest issue is with the idea that homosexual parents are considered unfit. If we were ALL created in His image, why should we be against His children finding love and raising children of their own? We as a society, have expelled this kind of hatred before. Women were not always treated as equals. Blacks were not always seen as people.
What ever happened to following God’s Golden Rule, stating “love thy neighbor as thyself?” What happened to “judge not, lest ye be judged?” Plus, which one of us can say, with 100% certainty, that we truly KNOW God’s will? We are not perfect, and we are certainly not Jesus Christ himself, who had a direct link to God. When we follow in light, love, and service to God, then we do our Heavenly Father proud.
Do not keep promoting hatred towards your fellow man. This is the true path of Evil. Satan comes in many forms. Remember that. Also, remember that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. Although it may be sought out to represent the best interest of the children in this nation, is it truly in God’s name and love that we continue to judge our fellow man?
I understand how a child may feel weird growing up in a gay household, especially when other kids poke fun. thats why I think people should give the kid a choice, to let him stay in foster care, or stay in the gay household. that is really the only reason id give them a choice, not because its ungodly! There are multiple instances in the bible that shows homosexuality is okay, like when it says “Thou shalt love thy neighbor.” and it says no where in the origonal king james bible that homosexuality is a sin. It says sodomy is a sin, but sodomy and homosexuality are to diferent things. If god made all man in his image then why would he make people gay only to hate them? Isn’t god a loving and compationant being? besides, most of the bible is writen in midevil english. I don’t know about you but Im sure a lot of the meanings have been loosly interprated. none of this anti gay stuff in religions make sence. in fact, i think origionally it wasn’t at all about how being gay was bad. I beleive that people added that stuff in later because of their fear of people being to diferent from them. It makes absolutly zero scence that god is compationant but hates homosexuals. one of those statements is obviously false. I don’t expect you to listen to this. I just want you to know that god loves all of us the same (including homosexuals).
one more thing, if ur argument is that kids need a mom and a dad to grow up healthy then oh boy are you wrong. the majority of parents these days are now devorcing. kids all over are from split families of either one dad or one mom. You might say that kids are still able to go visit their other parents but that is not always true, many times the parent will end up moving far away so the kid cant hardly see the parent if at all. if anything, gay or lesbian couples raising children is a step up from that. its just one more person who is capable of supporting their children. the only other issue is shame or the fear of diference in the world but for one, diference is what makes life interesting. Two, I am sure we can all think of an instance where something changed in our lifes but it wasn’t a bad thing. why can’t gay and lesbian couples be seen like that instead of some terrible monstrosity.
“There are multiple instances in the bible that shows homosexuality is okay, like when it says “Thou shalt love thy neighbor.” ”
And here I was thinking I had heard it all…
really, the fuck man… i prefer a homeless kid with gays couples and lesvians that without love or shelter… heterosexual couples dont even want to addopt kids why not let some1 that wants tooo.. Go to school and learn something usefulllll instead of this shitty comments.. i feel worthless commenting on this shit.. i must have alot of free time as well..