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!

Should Homosexuals Adopt Children ?

Re: A Debated Passage Through The Ages

Lewis W said:
I have heard all kinds of people try and explain verse 4 and 6 of Hebrews the 6th chapter. Now I want to hear it from you guy's. Now remember pay close attenstion to verse 4 and 6 because that word (impossible) is scary. and this statement in verse 6 (If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance) But read it from verse 1.

Hebrews 6 (King James Version)

Hebrews 6

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit.

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
How did this end up in this topic ? And I can't find where I put it.
 
Lewis
Why not start a new thread on Heb 6 so we can stay on track here on this thread. This thread you satarted on should homo's adopt children is important.
 
Judy said:
SputnikBoy,

Lewis W, jgredline and Atonement are Christians first mod's second. They are in titled to defend their faith and in titled to join in the debates here. Now if mod action is to take place in a debate I would hope that they (the mod's involved in the debate) would ask another mod or admin to referee.
I can tell you that I am not going to ask anyone of my mod's here to sit aside their belief and faith to accommodate anything that goes against God's word.
You are in titled to your opinion that they are acting like thugs or not behaving like Christians.
All that goes against God and His Word are destine for hell.. I believe that Lewis, Jgredline, and Atonement in their ways are trying to spread the Word of God and not water it down so as not to offend anyone. Then we have some like Lovely and Nikki who are sweet in their approach. In my opinion both approaches are needed and I believe that both approaches are done with the eternal interest of the other person.

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 . . .?
 
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 . . .
:wink:
 
SputnikBoy said:

But, if I have any complaints I guess I can always go to another forum, eh . . .?

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 :-?
 
jgredline 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......

????

And this 'threat' from someone I considered to be my friend ...?


jgredline said:
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...

Well, I guess I have to bite my tongue, eh ...just in case the other option is made for me ...?

jgredline said:
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 :-?

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.
 
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
 
jgredline said:
Lewis
Why not start a new thread on Heb 6 so we can stay on track here on this thread. This thread you satarted on should homo's adopt children is important.
That was put there by accident' sorry. Could a mod move my topic on Hebrews 6. Because I forgot to start a new thread. How did I do that I don't know. I am getting old I guess.
 
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€
 
Atonement said:
Well Moniker, show me in the Bible.. ANYWHERE in the Bible, that God accepts this life style and and I will agree with you right here and right now. If you can't then why are you playing the Devil's advocate??

Are you sure Moniker is playing? :o
 
kiwimac said:
I would think that a church which worships Jesus Christ as God, accepts the Bible and the Nicene and Apostle's creeds would be Christian, wouldn't you?

Further ALL Anglicans accept the 'triumvirate' of Faith, Tradition and the Bible. I am unaware that that contradicts the TOS of this site. If it does please inform me.

Furthermore as a priest in the ACI who has had his Church brought into disrepute ON THIS SITE I have both the honour and duty to show the mistake made.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International

Rev. Ray - Does the ACI ask/teach that its homosexual members repent of homosexuality?
 
kiwimac said:
Oscar3

Please show me where I or any other Anglican cleric say beastiality is ok. If you cannot, I give you 24 hours to retract this statement and remove it or I will take legal action against both you personally and this site.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International

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.

:-?

:lol:
 
kiwimac said:
That is not a discussion of the word porneia. That, Atonement, is libel in that Oscar is suggesting that I PERSONALLY teach that beastiality is OK.


Furthermore Jesus, when he lived among us, did not continually yell repent at people, why? because it is counter-productive, instead he lived with the folk that he ministered to, got alongside them, became friends with them. That is a much more useful way to 'preach' the Good News of Christ.

Oscar removed his post and you put it back up? Does this make any sense?
 
Lewis W said:
That was put there by accident' sorry. Could a mod move my topic on Hebrews 6. Because I forgot to start a new thread. How did I do that I don't know. I am getting old I guess.

Somehow, it seemed to fit in. Right, Rev. Ray?
 
Drew Wrote:
Do you really think that suggesting that a poster is mentally challenged, affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations, and calling a priest a "yo-yo" are acceptable behaviours for a moderator? All these have been done receently by the same moderator.

suggesting that a poster is mentally challenged

Never suggested.. Only questioned it. It's nice to see that they have dropped it, but you can not..

affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations

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

and calling a priest a "yo-yo"

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.
 
Atonement said:
Drew said:
affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations
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
The thread in question is "The Root of It" found in the Apologetics and Theology category. Readers can find it at

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:
Tan
I will answer your question in the same way that Jesus answered to those of your kind

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

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:
Moderators, I request that you please perform your function when you have the opportunity. No one should be permitted to address another poster in this fashion. I have added the bolding, and I do not represent it in any way as being present in the original post.

After another post by jgredline, you then comment on my request for moderator action. I have added bolding again:

Atonement said:
But yet Drew you want me to take action on a quote from Scripture? Sorry, but I have standards as a MOD, and I'm sorry if that Scripture offended you.. But I think it was well deserved.. Contact our Admins if you disagree..

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.
 
Back
Top