Gay Adoption

[Maus]

Oh, so you'll punish children because of a flawed system, rather than try to get them into the second best home possible. Sure, okay. Let them sit in an orphanage. Even though you feel that's worse than a gay family. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Be pragmatic, and realistic about this.

All through this argument, you've not really suggested a way to fix the system. You've only crabbed about how it is so unfair to your home schooler friends. Guess what? Home schooled kids are usually socially maladjusted from lack of interaction with peers. Perhaps that is why they are denied. The APA says children of gay parents are well adjusted.

Guess who they'd pick first if the gay family lived in a good school district.

[NecrophiliacOrgy]

I think it's a good step in stamping out prejudice even though it is a relatively small act in comparison with the abolishment of the apartheid.

[Attactivist]

At 3/15/05 05:17 PM, Maus wrote: a fat parent isn't as good as a thin one.

What if the parent is beliemic? And how does being fat have enying thing to do with raiseing a child? The child won't grow fat because there parent is.

[Maus]

At 3/17/05 04:57 PM, Oyster_Clock wrote:

At 3/15/05 05:17 PM, Maus wrote: a fat parent isn't as good as a thin one.

What if the parent is beliemic? And how does being fat have enying thing to do with raiseing a child? The child won't grow fat because there parent is.

Bulemia is a mental disorder.

And yes, children of sedentary, overweight parents tend to be sedentary, rather than active, and become overweight. Look around the country. We're surrounded by fatties.

[metalhead676]

sigh, and also what example are they setting for hte kids, teh kids may just become gay and that isn't good we have enough gay population, we don't need more the're spreading aidsa around like crazy and a lot of them are total dickheads.

[spa-z]

At 3/17/05 05:38 PM, metalhead676 wrote: sigh, and also what example are they setting for hte kids, teh kids may just become gay and that isn't good we have enough gay population, we don't need more the're spreading aidsa around like crazy and a lot of them are total dickheads.

Metalhead, if you don't have anything sensible to say....don't open your fucking browser.

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/16/05 09:58 PM, Tal-con wrote: but if you look closely at The Bible it says that we need NOT discriminate against people.

The Bible never states, "Thou shalt not discriminate." It says "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (in both Testaments). God admits that He considers homosexuality an abomination, so I guess God is discriminating against these people; is that right? Our job, as Christians, is to lovingly steer them in the right direction and hope they realize that what they do is wrong (the "lead a horse to water" philosophy). They must answer to God for that; but when they bring another, innocent human being into their sexual immorality, THAT cannot be ignored. The Lord is EXTREMELY defensive when it comes to children, and bringing them into that kind of environment is (without a shadow of a doubt) biblically wrong.

But I guess you missed that part, huh? I am not advocating homosexuality, I am advocating giving sinners equal rights, which is exactly what The New Testment preached. (Love thy neighbor as thyself)

That is ALSO exactly what the Old Testament preached: Leviticus 19:18. ~.^

When you say "Ok, I'm right because i said so", what do you think that makes you? Open-minded? No, it makes you pig-headed.

Call me what you like. I prefer to be "biblically" correct than "politically" correct.

And I'm sure your discriminating against minorities is helping.

"Wah, wah, wah." Adoption is NOT a right.

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin,

Yep.

but The Bible NEVER ONCE SAID that discrimionation is ok. In fact, Jesus showed several times that we are all sinners, and we are all equal lin God's eyes.

Of course, we are. But child adoption doesn't just affect the life of the homosexual; it affects the life of an innocent child. Like I said before, your good intentions are being taken advantage of. I realize that you mean well, but your reasoning is flawed.

What makes their one sin so special? If you were an adultery, does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to adopt either?

All sin is equal because ALL sin warrants spiritual death. But the earthly consequences, however, DO vary greatly. A white lie is spiritually equal to murder, but murder does much more earthly damage. Do you see my logic?

But it doesn't. You can't PROVE THAT. You repeat it over, and over, and over, saying children need both male and female role models, but you haven't shown one bit of PROOF of that.

I read Maus' psychological essay. I realize that there are no immediate effects, but the study (I also investigated the sources) is very new. There has not been enough time to measure the long-term effects of this. And that still doesn't change the fact that this may not be the best thing for the children; and as you astutely pointed out (:P), I also am against gay adoption for biblical reasons. It is obviously sexually immoral AND comepletely unethical (from a biblical perspective). Discrimination has nothing to do with it, dude...

No, your eagerness to discriminate has skewed your Christian judgement. In The New Testament, we can clearly see that Jesus "Forgvave the sexually immoral woman".

Did I ever say that Christ cannot forgive homosexuals? Of course not. I guess we shouldn't prosecute rapists because it is discrimination against their "sexual preference", huh? They have ALSO acted sexually immoral; do you think we should let them off the hook? Forcing children into a sexually immoral environment is WRONG! Get that into your head.

So why can't you? If anything I'm a better Christian than you, since I refuse to use The Bible to preach a message of intolerance.

Good grief. No... you pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible. Tal-con, if you actually "knew" God, I doubt you'd like Him very much.

The Bible says it's a sin, but it never says to discriminate against them. There's a difference, get it right.

Address these, if you PLEASE: bestiality, prostitution, incest, group sex, and necrophilia. All of these things, the Bible states as clearly sinful. Should we prevent people from doing these? In your own words, should we "discriminate" against people who do these things? Heh, they apparently don't hurt anybody. :P

Who are you to criticize me for my language? You were the first one to insult people to disagree with you, I only do it in retaliation.

Justifying your profanity (tsk, tsk). I haven't insulted anyone that didn't insult me first. ~.^

I can't believe you would compare homosexuality to beastiality. Do you know anything about your faith?

Yep.

Don't you know Jesus never discriminated against anyone?

Yep.

Just because I take a liberal stance on issues concerning gays does NOT make me an atheist,

I never said it did.

it makes me tolerant of those different from me.

Sin and holiness do not mix. You can't serve two masters... Which one do you choose to serve: the world (who says that homsexuality is perfectly fine) or the Bible (which clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination unto God)? Pick one.

you want to use your feelingsa to use our government to suppress basic rights.

Child adoption IS NOT A RIGHT; I am not homophobic, my friend.

Aristotle said himself "I do not agree with what this man does, but I will defend to the death his right to do so".

See above. ^^^

You know nothign of your faith, you only wish to discriminate peopel based on Old Testament verses

Homosexuality is clearly wrong (NT): Romans 1:26-27.

God help you if you bring children into it: Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2.

our contitution states that al men are created equal.

I couldn't care less about the constitution; I'm only concerned with the Bible.

Of course you won't get a direct quote of that from The Bible, but you can translate it from "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Actually, dude... "Love thy neighbor as thyself." is a DIRECT QUOTE.

In case, you hadn't noticed, youre a fucking idiot, and no one here has agreed with you in this entire thread.

That's because Newgrounds is 90% liberal. Most "conservative" people realize that it is a complete waste of time posting here. Most of them have better things to so (LoL). :P

:I think you really need to take another look at The New Testament.

Haha, that's funny. YOU telling ME to re-evaluate my Christian views. I know exactly what the Bible has to say on the matter, I don't allow criticism to "get to me".

[metalhead676]

At 3/17/05 05:54 PM, spa-z wrote:

Metalhead, if you don't have anything sensible to say....don't open your fucking browser.

oh, i see so im supposed to go "omg liek teh gayzorz roxrz my soxorz" thats not how i feel, and its my opinion, think about it for a minute before you reply to this youa sshole.

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/17/05 04:18 PM, Tal-con wrote: I did. In fact, it's still near the bottom of the 4th page.

I just replied. Forgive me for accidently skipping it (I honestly didn't see it).

Now click this link. No, don't just skim through it, READ it.

I DID read it (and I looked into the sources). Umm... I gave a response in the post before this.

Kudos to Maus for giving this link, unfortunatly Verse never took the time to read it before. I love ya Maussie =)

Like I said, I DID read it. Your're thanking Maus because she is the only one arguing intelligently on the "pro" side of the debate; you don't have much to contribute. :P

[jmaster306]

At 3/17/05 03:42 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: *sigh* Try to think "outside" the box of scientific logic. I want YOU to show ME the one absolute that science has to fall back on.

If that is what you meant then that is what you should have said. All you told me is that science is more unreliable than religion, which is a statement that I find hard to believe.

The Bible and science to not conflict; but according to you, all valid beliefs must be confirmed with one absolute. Prove to me why science is the end-all and be-all. I'm trying to show you that science is nothing but a bunch of postulates that, indeed, depend on each other for support. Science has NO absolute.

Science does have an absolute, it's called experimentation, calculation and logic. I will give you one thing and that is science is based on a few key concepts that cannot be directly proven. For example, gravity exists. That is one of the most obvious forces in our universe but for all our knowledge we can't find one "truth" to use to prove it, because it is the truth we use to prove other things. Experimentally we can measure it, we can create formulas to describe it but we rely on inductive reasoning to prove it. You give me the impression that you think I say that inductive reasoning is worthless when I consider it a great tool. My statement was (to be more specific this time) that faith alone cannot be good inductive reasoning.

The Bible's absolute = God, Himself
Science's absolute = Umm... ?

Experimentation, calculation and logic.

Be nice. Deductive is logical; it is reasoning from the general to the specific. Inductive is the complete opposite (assumption); it is taking the specific to conclude the general.

Doesn't making the leap from specific to general take logic? Good assumptions are logical my friend.

What are you talking about? Many biblical prophecies have come to pass (Like Jesus' first coming, for example); therefore, I can assume that more prophetic biblical scripture will come to pass. That is practicing the inductive form of reason. :P

But wouldn't everything in the bible that isn't true then degrade it's validity. I can flip a coin ten times, get 8 heads and two tails but that doesn't then give me the right to then say that the coin will come up heads next time I flip it. What I'm saying is you cannot assume something is correct just because it is in the bible. Good inductive reasoning requires lots of specifics in order to be melded into one general.

As for sources you can read what Maus posted earlier since it is a very good source, otherwise here is the works cited page from a research paper I wrote on homosexuality last semester. Most of my sources arn't from the web so you won't be able to easily look them up, but then again how much really "good" information do you find on the internet anyway. I also had several other very good sources that I didn't use for this particular paper, but I'll see if I can find a couple of them on the web.

1. Crompton, Louis. Homosexuality and Civilization. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.
2. Dynes, Wayne R. “Natural and the Unnatural.” Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. 1990.
3. Glenn, Norval D. “The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriages” Society 41.6 (2004): 25-8.
4. Kurtz, Stanley N. “What is Wrong with Gay Marriage?” Commentary 110.2 (200): 35-41
5. McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual. 4th ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.
6. The Natural Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). Adoption by Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Parents: an Overview of Current Law. 2004. 30 Nov. 2004 <http://www.nclrights.org/publications/adptn0204.htm#4>

[jmaster306]

At 3/17/05 06:10 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I read Maus' psychological essay. I realize that there are no immediate effects, but the study (I also investigated the sources) is very new. There has not been enough time to measure the long-term effects of this. And that still doesn't change the fact that this may not be the best thing for the children...

So there are no negative short term effects, there hasn't been enough time to really show long term effects, yet you still claim that it must be wrong. People are getting close to disproving one of your deeply held beliefs and your response is to stop it imediately, not allowing the studies to continue.

1. There arn't that many families that could participate in this study because there is such oppostition to them adopting children.
2. The families havn't been together for a long time because it has only been recently that such a lifestyle has become socially acceptable
3. In order for there to be completely concrete evidence on the benifit or harm in gay parrenting, more gay families need to be studied over a longer period of time.

These are facts, you even admitted to most of these being true. Yet you still refuse to give the researchers the benefit of the doubt and let them continue their work. That's like trying to find an ancient city, giving up after a few days and claiming that it doesn't exist. Sure you might be right, but you have no way of proving it.

[tre-x]

Well, apart from that, I think gays should be allowed to adopt. For every good set of hetero parents, there should be a good set of gay ones as well. Besides, there are plenty of babies without homes nowadays. Look at China.

[helenlea]

I do acknowledge that all heterosexual relationships are not perfect. Sometimes a child would be better off being raised by gay parents. But the fact is that the parent is the most influential role model in his or her child's life.

Being raised by gay parents, just by mere example, will no doubt make it more likely for the child to choose to be gay. The parents are the ones who shape the child's beliefs on what is right and wrong, and homosexuality is not natural. Homosexuals must be respected as people.

[Lambtaco]

Science is more believable than religion because everything to do with science is tangible. We know gravity exists because we can feel it. We know the sun exists because we can see it. WE don't know god exists because no one can see, hear, feel, smell, or taste him (or her).
And anything scientific that can not be proven with tangible evidence is supported by something that actually has tangible evidence proving it exists.

Man created God, a fictional character, to help him understand things. God didnot create man. Like this example:
Native Americans told stories about talking animals with magical powers. Then the christians came and told them their stories were false. If aliens came down and told you God doesn't exist what would you do? Chances are you wouldn't believe them despite the fact that they are far more advanced than you.

Sorry if this goes a bit off topic. I'm just saying that God isn't an argument (or the bible).

PS: No offence to any Native Americans. I don't believe in God or any religion for that matter. If I've offended you I'd ike to offend every other religion so it's fair. (ANd I know Native Americans have different religions between them in case anyone thinks otherwise)

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/17/05 08:09 PM, The_Green_M wrote: Science is more believable than religion because everything to do with science is tangible.

In that case, you are rebuking the second branch of reason. Your perspective is that of a secular humanist and not very scientific at all; if you only believe in what you can see, then you must think that human mind has reached the pinnacle of understanding. It is a self-centered opinion and (to be honest) an ignorant one, at that. If you believe that what you cannot see must not exist, then you will never get anywhere.

We know gravity exists because we can feel it. We know the sun exists because we can see it. WE don't know god exists because no one can see, hear, feel, smell, or taste him (or her).

We know that God exists because we have gravity (which we can feel) and the sun (which we can see); He gave them to us. That is the point I've been trying to make... God IS the absolute science is searching for. If people would only open their minds, they'd realize this.

And anything scientific that can not be proven with tangible evidence is supported by something that actually has tangible evidence proving it exists.

We have faith that science is the right way to understand the world around us... FAITH.

Man created God, a fictional character, to help him understand things. God didnot create man.

Really? Why don't you "prove" it scientifically? I have a book that says otherwise... :P

[jmaster306]

At 3/17/05 08:48 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: We know that God exists because we have gravity (which we can feel) and the sun (which we can see); He gave them to us. That is the point I've been trying to make... God IS the absolute science is searching for. If people would only open their minds, they'd realize this.

So you've presented the basic foundation to prove god's existance through inductive reasoning, praise the lord... he exists. However, that doesn't then automatically mean that everything in the bible is god's word. Don't try to use your argument that the bible must be true because god made it true. The word of god cannot prove the bible's truth if the bible's truth is also the word of god. Please use OUTSIDE information to support your arguments at least once. Not everything can be accurately proved and described through religion. If it could, why would we even have things like science in the first place.

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/17/05 08:56 PM, Tal-con wrote: That's what it translates to, dumbass.

Your entire vocabulary:

1) pig-headed
2) dumbass
3) discrimination

But that was in The Old Testament, when not keeping The Sabbath would get you stoned to death, and last time I checked, we don't live in those times anymore.

Sin does not change. You admitted that homosexual behavior is sinful, now you turn around and claim that it was an OR law that doesn't apply now. You keep contradicting yourself...

By the way:

OT Law - "A man shall not sleep with a man as he sleeps with a woman"
OT Punishment - "Death"

OT Law - "Do not murder"
OT Punishment - "Death"

OT Law - "Do not labor on the Sabbath because it is the Day of Rest"
OT Punishment - "Death."

The consequences have changed, but the LAW remains the same.

in The New Testament, we can clearly see that Jesus "Forgave the sexually immoral woman". What makes this woman so special? If she can be forgiven, so can homosexuals.

For Pete's sake, I NEVER said they couldn't be forgiven... (sigh)

If you read that link (which I'm sure you didn't) that Maus and I showed you, it says having homosexual parents has no negative side effects on the child whatsoever.

For the thousandth time, I read the freaking link. And I also said that this is a very new idea (none of the sources mentioned were beyond 25 years old or so [if I remember correctly]). You act as if this is a well-accepted, long-studied topic; but homosexual parenthood is still radically new (very controversial) idea. Don't pretend that I am the reformist... YOU ARE.

That is ALSO exactly what the Old Testament preached: Leviticus 19:18. ~.^

Ok, then why can't you treat homosexuals as equal?

Oh sure, just skip the fact that you were wrong. This is preached throughout the Bible (even when practicing homosexuality was considered a capital crime... thereby nullifying your argument. Once again... adoption is NOT a God-given right; it is a privilege.

I'm both. I'm Biblically correct because I won't discriminate against people, I love thy neighbor as myself, and I'm politically correct because I want to treat everyone equally.

You are politically correct because you don't want to "offend" anybody. And I just discredited your argument of "Love thy neighbor" in the above section.

And who are you to say that being a homosexual diminishes that right? So if the loving parents of a child were found out to be homosexual, even though the child was never molested and the child dearly loved his parents, AND was attracted to girls, would you still take him away?

All sin is equal because ALL sin warrants spiritual death. But the earthly consequences, however, DO vary greatly. A white lie is spiritually equal to murder, but murder does much more earthly damage. Do you see my logic?

But that doesn't mean we're all going to burn in hell. If a ahomosexual believed in Jesus, and wanted to adopt a child, would you still deny him/her?

Yep. If they are a Christian, then they'd realize that homosexuality is sinful, and they'd do their best to (with God's help) stop sinning sexually. And they certainly wouldn't try to force children into their immorality... that is, if they were a Christian.

DAMN IT, you're so stupid !!

Are you judging me? Haha... you hypocrite. The opposite of mercy is NOT discrimination; it is judgement. Don't point fingers, dude, because YOU are guilty of what you accuse ME of! I don't think Jesus would call someone who disagrees with you "stupid", would He? Hmm...

The American Psychiatric Association, one of the most credible organizations in America says you're wrong, and you STILL insist you're right !!

Oh shut up. I said that the study is incapable of being "thorough" because the long-term effects have not (and cannot) been measured. Don't be such an asshole.

If you can provide a link saying that there are negative long-term effects, I'll eat my hat. But you can't, so what's the point? Just admit you're wrong, sicne you obviously can't prove bullshit.

There have been no long-term effects because IT IS TOO NEW AND RADICAL! Nothing like this has ever come up because people took it as "common sense" that the best place for a child was in two-parent household with a mother and a father. You can't prove that there are negative long-term effects of raping a dead horse... does that make it "okay"?

It is discrimination, but it's faith-base discrimination. You said yourself all sin is spritually equal in God's eyes, and since you're human and you've obviously sinned, by your logic you and any other human shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child, either.

You haven't read a thing I've said on this subject, have you?

You just said homosexuality is an abomination before God, now you're sayign they can be forgiven. You also said all sin is equal, so why are you allowed to adopt children. Face it, you can't win.

READ WHAT I FREAKING SAID ON THIS! Are you optically impaired?

How dare you. I know God, and I know he's preached a message of love, and would never repeat the words he did in The Old Testament, saying homosexuals are an obmination and can't get into Heaven.

Homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament, and I gave you the scriptures. You must have "accidently" skipped them (~.^). Allow me to quote the words of Paul addressing the Church at Rome (1:27)... "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." AND here is where Paul addresses the Church at Corinth (first letter)(6:9-10)... "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Guess what? Homosexuality is addressed in the all-merciful "New Testament". Perhaps you don't understand the Bible as well as you think you do...

[VerseChorusVerse]

By the way, Tal-con... I'd appreciate it if you'd address what you keep avoiding: According to YOU, which of these sexual immoralities are permissable?

1) Necrophilia
2) Bestiality
3) Homosexuality
4) Incest
5) Prostitution
6) Group Sex

[obie1kenobie]

to basically answer this question you have to choose whether you are for or against homosexuality. As a kid your mind is still developing and having 2 gay parents will ultimately affect them later in life. It can't be said that they will turn out to be gay but theres always possibilities. i.e. Speech Accents are a perfect example showing that your surroundings as you grow up change the way you are. If you are for homosexuality then yes you ultimately should believe that Gay couples should be able to adopt kids. If you are against homosexuality then you should believe that choice should not be open to the gay community. I feel as a christian that a persons sexual preferance is that person's choice but whether they act on that choice shouldn't be allowed

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/17/05 09:00 PM, Tal-con wrote: The APA link says homosexual parents will not hurt the child, but all those things you've stated, clearly WILL.

Clearly? Prove it. How would bestiality, incest, necrophilia or prostitution hurt someone?

but recognize that they are capable of parenting, just as good if not better than you

Oh yeah... Like THAT wasn't spoken entirely out of your ass.

APA link clearly shows it.

The APA link shows nothing. First of all, men weren't even included in the study.

Justifying your profanity (tsk, tsk). I haven't insulted anyone that didn't insult me first. ~.^

Doesn't mean you didn't insult anyone. Maybe if you kept your temper I wouldn't have cussed you the fuck out. I won't let you talk to Maus and Damien like that.

Keep MY temper down? ROFL! You're the one flying off the handle here; and I don't believe that Maus and Damien need your "protection". They can speak for themselves...

Apparently not.

Apparently, you fall neatly into that category called "ignorant Christians".

So why are you? You're not a very good Christian.

I'm not... and that's only your "humble" opinion.

You've certainly accused me of being a false Chrisitan many more times than I can count, to which you should apologize.

Oh brother. You know an animal by its tracks; our interpretations greatly differ.

Sin and holiness do not mix. You can't serve two masters... Which one do you choose to serve: the world (who says that homsexuality is perfectly fine) or the Bible (which clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination unto God)? Pick one.

Have you been listening to my argument? Apprently not. LISTEN closely. And I'll make this perfectly clear. HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG, BUT YOU YOURSELF SAID ALL SIN IS EQUALLY WRONG, SO WHY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ONLY THEM?!?! RECOGNIZE YOU CAN BELIEVE IT'S WRONG BUT STILL GIVE THEM EQUAL RIGHTS.

As I have said before... All sin is "spiritually" equal because ALL sin warrants death. Not all sin is earthly equal because if it was, the punishment for every crime would be the same. The earthly value of a sin depends on how it affects others.

As I have also said before... Adoption is NOT a freaking RIGHT!

Being a homosexual is NOT a good reason to take away that privilage, or w/e you wanna call it. And yes, you are extremely homophobic, you can't even realize that even sinners shoul be given equal rights.

No, no, no. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobic

Homosexuality is clearly wrong (NT): Romans 1:26-27.

Leviticus 19:18

I showed you that one, dude. Remember? You said that "Love thy neighbor" was a New Testament scripture that discounted Old Testament laws. I showed you that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" could be found in BOTH Testaments. Next...

Luke 6:37

Haha. You are such a hypocrite; that verse states not to judge others, yet you have done nothing but judge me since we started this discussion. Moving on...

Matthew 7:1-3

*sigh* Same as above (LoL).

Matthew 7:12

The Golden Rule? What's your point? Not to point out the obvious, but your logic SUCKS.

Matthew 5:43-44

"Love your enemies." What the heck? Did you actually READ these verses before you posted them? Because they have nothing to do with the topic of homosexuality. It would appear that *gasp* you have NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT. The New Testament verses I listed actually addressed the subject of homosexuals; oh well, you "luke-warm" Christians only see what you want to see, only hear what you want to hear, and only read what you want to read. The Bible (numerous times) mentioned God's hatred for sexual sin; you act as if it is no big deal. Just give up because your view conflicts with that of the Bible.

Actually, dude... "Love thy neighbor as thyself." is a DIRECT QUOTE.

Which can be translated to treat everyone equally.

Why can you not admit a mistake? You said that it wasn't a direct quote; I show you that it is, and you can't admit that your wrong. You simply try to continue as if nothing happened. Dang, you are such a freaking coward.

That's because Newgrounds is 90% liberal. Most "conservative" people realize that it is a complete waste of time posting here. Most of them have better things to so (LoL). :P

Actually I think even Damien, a hard-line Republican has disagreed with you, it's just that your views are so radical.

Excuse me? Hard-line republican? He is a liberal republican with (from what I've seen) absolutely no typical republican stances on social issues. Oh quit saying that MY views are "radical" because YOUR views are the challengershere... not mine. And about half of the country agrees with me. ^.^

Haha, that's funny. YOU telling ME to re-evaluate my Christian views.

I'm a better Chrisitna then you'll ever be,I'd never use The Bible as an accuse to discriminate.

I see the Bible in its entirety; I don't politically "correct" the Holy Word of God.

Leviticus 19:18
Luke 6:37
Matthew 7:1-3
Matthew 7:12
Matthew 5:43-44

You listed those before, dude; and I addressed them. Now it's your turn to address mine.

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/17/05 10:41 PM, Tal-con wrote: The Bible doesn't say discriminate against them, it says stone them to death, and since those rules obviously don't apply anymore, there is no need to treat them different. Once again, Jesus forgave the sexually immoral women, why can't you?

According to the Old Testament, serial murderers were to be killed; but I believe that the death penalty no longer applies. Should we not descriminate against them because we were told to do so in Mosaic times? Jesus would forgive them, as well, you know. I have an awesome idea... Let's let THEM adopt! As you see, that logic is flawed.

Then why are you treating them differently?!?!? We've all sinned, that's a fact, homosexuals sin, YOU sin, I sin, it's inevitable. You've even stated that all sin is equal in the eyes of God, so why only discriminate against these sinners (homosexuals), what makes them so special?

Nothing. They can do whatever they want (including practice sexual sin), but taking an innocent child into that environment where immorality is ever-present = sinful, itself.

Read the dates on that research. Some date back to i986, while some is as recent as 1996.

If a child was one year old in 1986, they would only be nineteen years old today; that doesn't seem very "long-term" to me. And before a radical and unnatural scenario like that is accepted, the long-term effects should be researched. Don't you agree?

*bangs head on desk*

*Oddly, no damage was done.*

Name one time I've stated homosexuality wasn't a sin. I know the hate thy sin, love thy sinner concept is new to someone as pig-headed as you, but please realize it doesn't always have to be so black and white.

Sinfulness IS a black and white issue, dude. Do I hate homosexuals? No, I most certainly don't; quit putting words in my mouth. If you admit that homosexuality is a sexual sin, then why do you keep trying to justify bringing a child into it? Your ethics are twisted.

This is preached throughout the Bible (even when practicing homosexuality was considered a capital crime... thereby nullifying your argument. Once again... adoption is NOT a God-given right; it is a privilege.

And who are you to determine that this sin deserves taking away that right?

Are you BLIND? It's not a freaking right.

Remember you said yourself, all sin is equal in the eyes of God

You don't listen AT ALL, fo you? All sin is ony spiritually equal in the fact that ANY sin grants us a one-way ticket to Hell (hence Jesus' sacrifice). But not all sin is "earthly" equal because various sins do various amounts of damage. Get my point?

No, you discredited shit. Read my response.

You gave no response. You keep stating things as "truth", and when I disprove your little theories, you completely ignore my text. You said that "Love thy neighbor" was a NT philosophy; I proved that it was used in both the New and Old Testaments.

All sin is equal because ALL sin warrants spiritual death.

That is such fabricated bullshit !!

Ahem... "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." A fabrication?

If you look closely in The New Testament it says those who believe in Jesus Christ will live forever. Now you're going against the entire message of The New Testament and telling us we're all spiritually dead.

Blah... We ARE spiritually dead, but Jesus' blood has washed us clean of sin.

Fine, then with that same logic, you are no longer allowed to sin anymore, because you believe in Jesus Christ. Oh wait, I forgot just because you believe in Jesus Christ doesn't mean you're going to stop sinning.

Christians sin, but we HAVE no sin. All sin is automatically covered by Jesus Christ's sacrifice. See? My logic doesn't contradict itself... unlike yours.

and I'm pretty sure the APA link says children who live under homosexual parents turn out completely normal, but I guess you forgot about that part, huh?

That page is dated 1995. They haven't "turned out" to be anything, yet.

First Damien is an ignorant socialist.

I never said that, did I? He is very liberal (socially), though.

Then I'm a flase Crhsitian.

Let's see: You ignore 2/3 of the Bible, and you'd rather be poiltically correct. Hmm...

Then Newgrounds is all of a sudden 90% liberal.

(LoL) List of topics:

>I hate Bush (locked)
>Why religion sucks
>Communism is awesome
>Official Bush Topic
>Why can't Bush die? (locked)
>I luv abortion
>Bush sux ASS (locked)

Uh huh. Dang those conservatives for taking over Newgrounds!

I don't think Jesus would call someone an ignorant socialist and imply he wasn't a Christian if he really was

Is this a joke? First of all, when did I ever call FLAGG an "ignorant socialist"? I might have thought it, but that's not the point (LoL). Jesus would call YOU out in a second; if you remember, He didn't take kindly to people perverting holy things...*cough*temple*cough*. You have disregarded most scripture and twisted the remaining scripture into political submission. You CANNOT be both politically correct and biblically correct: Biblical correctness = Attempting to please God and submitting to His will. Political correctness - Attempting to please MAN and submitting to HIS will. Pick one...

What happened to prejudice being wrong? You hypocrite.

What happened to Christians following the Bible?

I've watched you dodge my questions, does that count?

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability.

Stop dodging questions !!

I ANSWERED IT AGES AGO, YOU MORON!

First you said homosexuals could be forgiven, now you back track? That's bullshit.

How many times do I have to say this? Yes, they can be forgiven.

Must I repeat that Jesus has forgiven the sexually immoral women?

I wouldn't. It has no relevance.

When Paul said that, he was reffering to the sexually immoral who did not believe in Jesus Christ.
This is a paraphrase of David in Psalms "How lucky is the sinner who chose to believe in God, for he will not live to see the punishment of his sins."

You criticize me for using the Old Testament when you're bringing it up? Are you saying that, because we are Christians, any behavior is permissable? Get real...

I'm going to bed, you should just give up while you're behind.

Considering just about ALL your arguments conflict with each other, I don't see how you are ahead. Your cause is better off without you, Tal-con... Good night.

[VerseChorusVerse]

Eh, (to the moderators) I'm sorry for triple-posting; this will be my last post for tonight.

To Tal-con:

I am going to try and stop this debate right now. It would appear that we are the only two persons arguing about this subject, and we aren't getting anywhere. I propose that we just "drop" this thing and move on. I asked you several questions in my last two posts, but I am willing to sacrifice them to end this stupid thing. Furthermore, I take back all those insults because I simply don't want head in that direction. We can agree to disagree; we just interpret the Bible's message differently, and we BOTH must answer to God in the end. This debate must be put out of its misery, so I propose we just leave it alone. You may reply, if you wish, but I shall not give a response because I feel we keep going around in circles... I will only post if what I feel you say is completely "outlandish". Otherwise, look to see me... no more.

[Lambtaco]

At 3/17/05 08:48 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/17/05 08:09 PM, The_Green_M wrote: Science is more believable than religion because everything to do with science is tangible.

In that case, you are rebuking the second branch of reason. Your perspective is that of a secular humanist and not very scientific at all; if you only believe in what you can see, then you must think that human mind has reached the pinnacle of understanding. It is a self-centered opinion and (to be honest) an ignorant one, at that. If you believe that what you cannot see must not exist, then you will never get anywhere.

What I'm saying is that I won't believe most things that haven't been proven. I never said that if we haven't proven it yet it isn't true. I don't believe in God because his existence is highly unlikely.

We know gravity exists because we can feel it. We know the sun exists because we can see it. WE don't know god exists because no one can see, hear, feel, smell, or taste him (or her).

notice how I didn't say "we know God doesn't exist," I said that we don't know he exists. believing something and knowing something are completey different.

We know that God exists because we have gravity (which we can feel) and the sun (which we can see); He gave them to us. That is the point I've been trying to make... God IS the absolute science is searching for. If people would only open their minds, they'd realize this.

I'll admit I'm a bit closeminded about god. But come on, if you had been raised an atheist and been told that there is an all powerful being that you can't see you would be skeptical too.

And anything scientific that can not be proven with tangible evidence is supported by something that actually has tangible evidence proving it exists.

We have faith that science is the right way to understand the world around us... FAITH.

Faith is just an assumption.

Man created God, a fictional character, to help him understand things. God didnot create man.

Really? Why don't you "prove" it scientifically? I have a book that says otherwise... :P

There's more evidence proving God doesn't exist than there is proving he does. And if you consider people believing in something proof then all religions must be correct.

And the things you (VCV) say about bringing a child into a sexually immoral place are kind of weird; there's nothing sexual about a (healthy) relationship between a father and his son.

[PharaohRamsesII]

Gay adoption is wrong, What do you seriously think is going to happen to the child raised by gay parents? He is going to be more of a fem, And we can always do with less fem guys. Secondly, whoever said the New Testament is better, God was more hardcore in the Old Testament, If anything, We need God back like that, To get rid of the complete bullshit in this world. This world needs a good smoting.

[Lambtaco]

TovaryshIvan,
At leat use a better theoretical argument than "he's gonna be a fem." Come on did you read the whole thread? Much more intelligent arguments have come up (most from VerseChoruVerse) on your side.

I'm gonna bring up another point as not to make another post.
I can completely understand why someone would be against abortion (although I'm for it) but why be against gay adoption. It doesn't affect you unless you're the one being adopted or adopting. It's a win-win situation (Child gets loving parents, Parents get Child). The only loser is the observer who finds gay people "icky."

[VerseChorusVerse]

I am addressing this because it isn't actually "topic-related":

At 3/17/05 08:48 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/17/05 08:09 PM, The_Green_M wrote: Science is more believable than religion because everything to do with science is tangible.

In that case, you are rebuking the second branch of reason. Your perspective is that of a secular humanist and not very scientific at all; if you only believe in what you can see, then you must think that human mind has reached the pinnacle of understanding. It is a self-centered opinion and (to be honest) an ignorant one, at that. If you believe that what you cannot see must not exist, then you will never get anywhere.

What I'm saying is that I won't believe most things that haven't been proven. I never said that if we haven't proven it yet it isn't true. I don't believe in God because his existence is highly unlikely.

How is His existence highly unlikely? Basic rule of physics... "Something cannnot come from nothing". Therefore, in order for something to be here, something must have always existed (namely God). See the logic?

notice how I didn't say "we know God doesn't exist," I said that we don't know he exists. believing something and knowing something are completey different.

True. But isn't very difficult for me to believe because many things already point to Him.

We know that God exists because we have gravity (which we can feel) and the sun (which we can see); He gave them to us. That is the point I've been trying to make... God IS the absolute science is searching for. If people would only open their minds, they'd realize this.

I'll admit I'm a bit closeminded about god. But come on, if you had been raised an atheist and been told that there is an all powerful being that you can't see you would be skeptical too.

Sure, I completely understand. But don't allow yourself to be indoctrinated; think as an individual. I'm not condemning anyone, but it's best to come to your own conclusions.

Faith is just an assumption.

Yes, and do you not "assume" that science is the best way to go? We must combine both inductive and deductive reasoning to get the FULL picture (if we are allowed to). Science is a way of explaining what we can observe through our five senses, but who says that something cannot exist outside out of our own, little box? Science obviously cannot explain itself, so it has NO absolutes to fall back on. Science must be taken on faith, as well.

There's more evidence proving God doesn't exist than there is proving he does.

List that evidence, if you please.

And if you consider people believing in something proof then all religions must be correct.

I'm not sure what you mean. There can only be ONE TRUTH. Considering the Bible makes perfect sense (once you begin to understand it) and prophecies have already come to pass (establishing credibility), I choose to believe its contents. Christianity had the most humble beginnings, yet it has grown to become the most influencial faith in the world. And to think, it began with the wrongful execution of one Man...

And the things you (VCV) say about bringing a child into a sexually immoral place are kind of weird; there's nothing sexual about a (healthy) relationship between a father and his son.

Umm... I didn't say that there was. What are you talking about?

[PharaohRamsesII]

Lol, ok, the kid is going to grow up a little more gay then regular children. How akward is it for a kid to grow up with 2 gay parents? I don't care if it's a kid I don't know, It's still one more kid growing up to be more gay than straight. You are obviously only going to be raised biasedly as there is no mother to counterbalance things out.

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/18/05 02:11 AM, TovaryshIvan wrote: Lol, ok, the kid is going to grow up a little more gay then regular children. How akward is it for a kid to grow up with 2 gay parents? I don't care if it's a kid I don't know, It's still one more kid growing up to be more gay than straight. You are obviously only going to be raised biasedly as there is no mother to counterbalance things out.

Dude...

I find homosexual activity to be sinful, but that is their own choice. I just don't want them forcing a child into that kind of immoral environment. I also believe that a child needs the influence of both a mother and a father... Those are legitimate points. You just spout off hatreful remarks, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support gay adoption and are simply trying to make me the opposition look homophobic. Just drop it, dude.

[Lambtaco]

At 3/18/05 02:10 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: How is His existence highly unlikely? Basic rule of physics... "Something cannnot come from nothing". Therefore, in order for something to be here, something must have always existed (namely God). See the logic?

Then where did God come from?

(And TovaryshIvan, seriously read the whole thread. It's basically all been said.)

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 3/18/05 02:21 AM, The_Green_M wrote: Then where did God come from?

GOD IS THE ABSOLUTE! Because (according to science) something must have always existed... God is that something. He created this entire universe, He created the laws that give this universe order, AND He created scientific reason, itself. God does exist, has always existed, and will always exist; He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. My friend, God is THE ONLY ABSOLUTE. It's actually quite logical... ^.^

But could you please address my other points?