Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Should Homosexuals Adopt Children ?
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
Judy
Member
You posted it here. However, I think you meant to post it in this topic ... http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 258#305258
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Judy said:
With all due respect, Judy, I disagree with your post. You also ignored one of the main issues of my post which was to do with the mods' mollycoddling of Oscar. They (the mods) need to be pulled into line although, obviously, a formal complaint to the board admin suggesting such isn't going to do any good. There seems to be honor among more than thieves. Whenever mods monopolize a thread and attack or/and belittle another poster - as has occurred on this thread - then I believe the line has been crossed. Such 'wolf-pack' mentality and behavior is hardly 'spreading the Word of God.' They - even perhaps you, Judy - may believe that they have the monopoly on biblical 'truth' but I've come to the conclusion after 18 months of participating on this forum that NO ONE HAS the truth 100%!
But, if I have any complaints I guess I can always go to another forum, eh . . .?
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Back on topic. Is there any scriptural precedent or guideline that can be used that might 'forbid' or otherwise not recommend homosexuals from adopting children? If not, do we have to resort to opinion only in regard to this topic?
BTW, I have not re-read every post. This question may have already been addressed. If so, I apologize.
Another thing. Homosexual and heterosexual are merely labels we apply to people to define their sexual orientation. Does this label, in and of itself, have ANYTHING to do with one's ability to raise a child successfully?
ANOTHER 'another thing' ...any number of 'apparent heterosexuals' who are married and have children are HOMOSEXUAL in orientation. They are simply living a lie. Some might go the distance and die with their secret. Others eventually have to 'come out' because it becomes too much a burden for them to carry. Do these people suddenly become 'unfit' parents to the children they have already sired or adopted?
Such tricky questions but we DO - fortunately - have a lot of experts on this forum . . .
:
BTW, I have not re-read every post. This question may have already been addressed. If so, I apologize.
Another thing. Homosexual and heterosexual are merely labels we apply to people to define their sexual orientation. Does this label, in and of itself, have ANYTHING to do with one's ability to raise a child successfully?
ANOTHER 'another thing' ...any number of 'apparent heterosexuals' who are married and have children are HOMOSEXUAL in orientation. They are simply living a lie. Some might go the distance and die with their secret. Others eventually have to 'come out' because it becomes too much a burden for them to carry. Do these people suddenly become 'unfit' parents to the children they have already sired or adopted?
Such tricky questions but we DO - fortunately - have a lot of experts on this forum . . .
:
jgredline
Member
SputnikBoy said:
Sput two things. One to quote you '' if I have any complaints I guess I can always go to another forum, eh . .''
This is a good option for you or it may be made for you......
Secondly, While Oscars methods are harsh, he has done nothing wrong that I have seen and has even infact opplogized for something that I would not have...
and another thing, you don't know what goes on with Pm's...and the warnings do you. Listen friend. He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones :-?
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
jgredline said:
????
And this 'threat' from someone I considered to be my friend ...?
jgredline said:
Well, I guess I have to bite my tongue, eh ...just in case the other option is made for me ...?
jgredline said:
I have NEVER used insults and derogatory terms to put down someone who does not agree with me.
Oh, I lie. ONCE to Oscar and it was not for disagreeing with me.
Nice of you to use 'friend', jg ...you used to mean it.
O
Oscar3
Guest
Wow
How this thread has grown in a 24 hour period.
This is what happens when you have good fighting evil.
Jesus said you are with me or your against me.
Needing a mom and dad
Another series of problems arises from the lack of role models, normally present in a household headed by a father and a mother. A household with one or more homosexually behaving members "deprives foster children of vitally needed positive contributions to child adjustment," Rekers states.
Lacking is the mother/father relationship and model as related to child rearing. Also absent is the model of a husband/wife relationship "which is significantly healthier, substantially more stable socially and psychologically, and is more widely approved compared to homosexual lifestyles," the professor writes.
Rekers notes that openly identified homosexual researchers frequently argue that an adult's sexual orientation has no bearing on whether they can carry out important parenting functions. He admits that this capability is necessary in a foster home, but it is not the only condition needed.
Adopted children not only require parents who can carry out basic parental functions. They also need parents who provide a family structure where there is an environment that is propitious for a child's development. In fact, for this reason, he notes, the state already puts restrictions on those who can adopt, and normally excludes, for example, newly married or elderly couples, and recently arrived immigrants.
Children placed for adoption have normally already lost a positive role model of a married mother and father, and placing them in a household headed by two persons of the same sex will leave them still bereft of this model.
Marriages that consist of both a man and a woman provide special advantages in raising children, Rekers explains. Children see and experience the innate and unique abilities and characteristics that each sex possesses and contributes to their combined endeavor. As well, children learn lessons for later life by seeing both parents working together in child rearing.
Reker argues that a heterosexual marriage provides a child with four models that provide strong advantages to a child who grows up to become a married adult:
 A heterosocial role model of a stable married male/female relationship.
 A heterosocial role model of mother and father coordinating co-parenting.
 A parenting role model of father-child relationship.
 A parenting role model of a mother-child relationship.
The study observes that the best child adjustment come about when they live with a married man and woman. "It is clearly in the best interests of foster children," Rekers states, "to be placed with exclusively heterosexual married-couple foster families because this natural family structure inherently provides unique needed benefits and produces better child adjustment than is generally the case in households with a homosexually behaving adult." Whether such arguments impress legislators in Canada and Spain remains to be seen. ZE05052101
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0097.html
How this thread has grown in a 24 hour period.
This is what happens when you have good fighting evil.
Jesus said you are with me or your against me.
Needing a mom and dad
Another series of problems arises from the lack of role models, normally present in a household headed by a father and a mother. A household with one or more homosexually behaving members "deprives foster children of vitally needed positive contributions to child adjustment," Rekers states.
Lacking is the mother/father relationship and model as related to child rearing. Also absent is the model of a husband/wife relationship "which is significantly healthier, substantially more stable socially and psychologically, and is more widely approved compared to homosexual lifestyles," the professor writes.
Rekers notes that openly identified homosexual researchers frequently argue that an adult's sexual orientation has no bearing on whether they can carry out important parenting functions. He admits that this capability is necessary in a foster home, but it is not the only condition needed.
Adopted children not only require parents who can carry out basic parental functions. They also need parents who provide a family structure where there is an environment that is propitious for a child's development. In fact, for this reason, he notes, the state already puts restrictions on those who can adopt, and normally excludes, for example, newly married or elderly couples, and recently arrived immigrants.
Children placed for adoption have normally already lost a positive role model of a married mother and father, and placing them in a household headed by two persons of the same sex will leave them still bereft of this model.
Marriages that consist of both a man and a woman provide special advantages in raising children, Rekers explains. Children see and experience the innate and unique abilities and characteristics that each sex possesses and contributes to their combined endeavor. As well, children learn lessons for later life by seeing both parents working together in child rearing.
Reker argues that a heterosexual marriage provides a child with four models that provide strong advantages to a child who grows up to become a married adult:
 A heterosocial role model of a stable married male/female relationship.
 A heterosocial role model of mother and father coordinating co-parenting.
 A parenting role model of father-child relationship.
 A parenting role model of a mother-child relationship.
The study observes that the best child adjustment come about when they live with a married man and woman. "It is clearly in the best interests of foster children," Rekers states, "to be placed with exclusively heterosexual married-couple foster families because this natural family structure inherently provides unique needed benefits and produces better child adjustment than is generally the case in households with a homosexually behaving adult." Whether such arguments impress legislators in Canada and Spain remains to be seen. ZE05052101
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0097.html
O
Oscar3
Guest
Lewis
Member
This is from a June 2006 article.
Missouri may no longer block lesbian from becoming foster parent
[Finally - blogger is letting me post!]
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon says a bill signed into law this week makes it impossible for the state to challenge a Kansas City lesbian’s application to become a foster parent.
The bill signed by Gov. Matt Blunt repeals “a longstanding Missouri law that essentially criminalized homosexuality.â€
Missouri may no longer block lesbian from becoming foster parent
[Finally - blogger is letting me post!]
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon says a bill signed into law this week makes it impossible for the state to challenge a Kansas City lesbian’s application to become a foster parent.
The bill signed by Gov. Matt Blunt repeals “a longstanding Missouri law that essentially criminalized homosexuality.â€
christian_soldier
Member
Atonement said:
Are you sure Moniker is playing? :o
christian_soldier
Member
kiwimac said:
Rev. Ray - Does the ACI ask/teach that its homosexual members repent of homosexuality?
christian_soldier
Member
moniker said:
And this defends homosexuals, how?
:christian_soldier
Member
kiwimac said:
But, but, you love all sinners, isn't that so? Gosh, you are confusing me. Jesus the Liberal loves homosexuals, but doesn't love "animalsexuals"?
Make up my mind already.
:-?
:christian_soldier
Member
kiwimac said:
Oscar removed his post and you put it back up? Does this make any sense?
christian_soldier
Member
Lewis W said:
Somehow, it seemed to fit in. Right, Rev. Ray?
Atonement
Member
Drew Wrote:
Never suggested.. Only questioned it. It's nice to see that they have dropped it, but you can not..
I think I will ask for a cut and paste, and the link to where I said this. I'll give you 24hrs to look this up, or a warning will be posted on against your membership for bashing, lieing and challenging a MOD
Point taken, he is a yo-yo (foolish) priest if he accepts the homosexual lifestyle into his church. Can you show us where in the Bible it's accepted in the Church? I'm not talking about the sinner, I'm talking about the sin of homosexuality in to the Church? Calling this priest a foolish or "yo-yo" is point taken. Unless he can prove his point, then I will gladly apologize, and retract all my statements made to him here in public!!! But, in the meantime it was not a violation, but a very true statement. He is foolish to accept this if the Bible teaches otherwise. And Drew you yourself are defending that, this shows us the true DREW.. I guess you do not understand the term "yo-yo" which at this point in time I'm assuming is the case.
Never suggested.. Only questioned it. It's nice to see that they have dropped it, but you can not..
I think I will ask for a cut and paste, and the link to where I said this. I'll give you 24hrs to look this up, or a warning will be posted on against your membership for bashing, lieing and challenging a MOD
Point taken, he is a yo-yo (foolish) priest if he accepts the homosexual lifestyle into his church. Can you show us where in the Bible it's accepted in the Church? I'm not talking about the sinner, I'm talking about the sin of homosexuality in to the Church? Calling this priest a foolish or "yo-yo" is point taken. Unless he can prove his point, then I will gladly apologize, and retract all my statements made to him here in public!!! But, in the meantime it was not a violation, but a very true statement. He is foolish to accept this if the Bible teaches otherwise. And Drew you yourself are defending that, this shows us the true DREW.. I guess you do not understand the term "yo-yo" which at this point in time I'm assuming is the case.
Drew
Member
The thread in question is "The Root of It" found in the Apologetics and Theology category. Readers can find it atAtonement said:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... light=root
See page 10.
In that thread, jgredline made the following statement to TanNinety. I have bolded the relevant part:
jgredline said:
This text cleary suggests that Tan has the desires of his father - who is declared to be a murderer.
The next post is from me in respect to the above post:
Drew said:
After another post by jgredline, you then comment on my request for moderator action. I have added bolding again:
Atonement said:
I think that the above exchange clearly shows your affirmation of jg's post to Tan. Since in that first post, jg effectively suggests that Tan shares his father's murderous inclinations, you affirm that position when you state that the quote was "well deserved". This may not have been your intention, but things read as they read.