Should Homosexuals Adopt Children ?

[Oscar3]

:o

 

[Rick W]

I do know at one time NAMBLA was supported by certain homosexual groups but I believe they've distanced themselves from that group not long ago.

As for intergenerational relationships where the link mentions age of consent:

Age of consent toward sex in general has been under attack for some time but has yet to gain much steam. Being that we are teaching kids at an early age, even before puberty in many cases, these kids will mature holding to the attitudes taught them of tolerance to sexual preference during their younger years.
"Adjustments" to age of consent may very well gain momentum due to the early age at which they themselves were introduced, publicly, to diversity within sexual tolerances. Consent at 12 won't really seem so bad when at 10 they became used to sexual discussion in groups, in a public place of sorts among friends and peers. What may seem grossly immoral to us today may not even be conceived as indecent to them tomorrow.
After all, look how shacking up (PC: co-habitation) has been normalized. And now I see over 1/3 of the babies born today are out of wedlock. Things are changing.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Things are changing.

For the worse.

 

[Rick W]

And at a much faster pace. One can gauge attitudes toward sex as the list of things once held as immoral grows smaller. I think about all that's left is rape, sex with those under 14 years of age (16 tops) and beastiality - maybe. All else is usually covered as "OK" between consenting adults.

 

[christian_soldier]

The Socialist Republic of Massachusetts is indoctrinating 2nd Graders (7 year olds) with a book called King and King.

Sexual “Indoctrination†Without Parental Notification In Lexington, MA

The Town of Lexington, Massachusetts is back in the news. Again the episode takes place in Superintendent Paul Ash's public school system. The latest controversy is about a teacher reading "a gay-themed fairy tale to children without notifying them first". Ash sees this as providing "a welcoming environment for all kids".

more... http://www.bythebook.org/2006/04/sexual_indoctri.html

more... http://www.massresistance.com/docs/issu ... /book.html

 

[kiwimac]

This is, of course, wrong. Statistics show very clearly that Heterosexuals are quite the majority of child molesters.

I wonder why publications like this lie when it is comparatively simple to see for ourselves that they are wrong? Could it be they expect their readers to do no research? or are they convinced that their target audience will believe them without any kind of quibble.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

<snip>

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).

Source:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Further

Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in “Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders”, that when a man molests little girls, we call him a "pedophile" and not a "heterosexual." Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, "homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society's aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to "family values," many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. Today, gays face the same kind of prejudice. Most recently, we've seen gay men unfairly turned out of the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of this myth that gay men are likely to be child molesters. Keeping gays out of scouting won't protect boys from pedophiles.

In reality, abuse of boys by gay pedophiles is rare, and the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still. Nicholas Groth is a noted authority on this topic. In a 1982 study by Grot, he asks, "Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children, and are pre-adolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual." Herek writes, similarly, that abuse of boys by gay men is rare; and that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still.

Source:
http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International

 

[SputnikBoy]

The below is a repost of a previous item that I submitted a week or so ago. I really would appreciate a comment or two.

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 . . .

 

[Rick W]

One thing I will address that I have multiple times before.
If it's not in the bible that does not mean it's ok or up for grabs. That in itself is as empty an argument as one can get. Pedophilia is not mentioned what-so-ever. Nada. Zero. Does that mean it's ok? Absence is by no means permissiveness.

Tell me something SputnikBoy. Because there is no reference to underage sex in the bible does that mean you support it? After all, you're basing your argument on that very premise. And if you don't advocate underage sex then what do you base that restriction on?

 

[jgredline]

The below is a repost of a previous item that I submitted a week or so ago. I really would appreciate a comment or two.

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 . . .

The below is a repost of a previous item that I submitted a week or so ago. I really would appreciate a comment or two.

What can really be said about this silly post.
The bible does not say I can't do ''Cocaine''
The bible does not say I can't rob ''wells fargo bank''
The bible does not say I can't look at porn on the internet
The bible does not say I can't go to nudie bars
The bible does not say I can't marry my car
The bible does not say I can't have an affair with a tree...

So sput by ''your'' logic all this is cool with God
Sput, You wanted an opinion, thats what I gave you. I hope you can see how loony your logic is in this....... :-?

 

[Oscar3]

The below is a repost of a previous item that I submitted a week or so ago. I really would appreciate a comment or two.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. nkjv

 

[Rick W]

What can really be said about this silly post.
The bible does not say I can't do ''Cocaine''
The bible does not say I can't rob ''wells fargo bank''
The bible does not say I can't look at porn on the internet
The bible does not say I can't go to nudie bars
The bible does not say I can't marry my car
The bible does not say I can't have an affair with a tree...

So sput by ''your'' logic all this is cool with God
Sput, You wanted an opinion, thats what I gave you. I hope you can see how loony your logic is in this....... :-?

"The bible does not say I can't rob ''wells fargo bank''
Well, yes it does... Thou shalt not steal.
But I think the point is driven home well enough.
I just want to know how he stands with pedophilia because there's no direct biblical reference to that. By his logic I suppose he supports it.

 

[jgredline]

"The bible does not say I can't rob ''wells fargo bank''
Well, yes it does... Thou shalt not steal.
But I think the point is driven home well enough.

PotLuck
That was exactly my point. The bible does mention ''wellsfargo'' specifically but says ''thou shall not steal'' But by Sputs logic in the way he explained his position,is if the bible does not say specifically ''wellsfargo'' then it should be ok to rob ''wellsfargo'' You see how this makes NO sense.... :wink:

 

[Rick W]

LOL

Best inform Wells Fargo to up their security. :-D

 

[Drew]

The bible does not say I can't have an affair with a tree...

:o

 

[Rick W]

God hates trees.


Dan 4:23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field;

Deu 16:21 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.

Jdg 6:25 And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it:

1Ki 16:33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.

2Ki 23:6 And he brought out the grove from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.

Dan 4:14 He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches:

Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Mar 11:8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strewed them in the way.

Jer 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

Isa 18:5 For before the harvest, when the bud is perfect, and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks, and take away and cut down the branches.

Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

:-D

 

[Oscar3]

:-D :-D

 

[SputnikBoy]

Did any of you actually READ my post? I used NO logic at all. I merely asked questions. :o

The very same people who are criticizing me for asking for scriptural precedents for dealing with this issue are those very same ones who incessantly accuse me of merely giving opinions. And THAT was the only 'logic' (if you like) behind my post. This very topic encourages opinions and not scripture.

I do, however, appreciate some of the humor ...especially the 'God hates trees' post. :D

 

[Rick W]

OK. Then it's my solid opinion that one cannot use absence of mention as proof of approval.

Other than that you and others can continue the discussion. But please refrain from using "The bible doesn't say..." as evidence that something is ok. It just doesn't work.