At 3/19/05 02:52 AM, fli wrote:

At 3/19/05 02:01 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Faith > Country

OMG...
terrorist...

-(

*wipes sarcasm jism off*

Christ almighty, fli...you wanna watch where you aim that? This isn't the shooting range, buddy.

At 3/19/05 02:52 AM, fli wrote: *wipes sarcasm jism off*

Honestly dude, it's a little thing called "self-control".
Does your partner put up with your excitability level???? Must be a man of patience!

At 3/19/05 02:43 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 3/19/05 02:03 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

Faith > Country

HAHAHAHA...oh man...that's a good one.
Oh..wait...you're...serious?

Indeed, I am. Faith = God Almighty > Country = regular dudes.

The Bible = inspired (not dictated) Word of God
Constitution = dumb piece of paper written by ordinary men

I do say Damien... I think he is! What a silly protestant christian.

Umm... Silly? No. Stupid? No. Devout? Yes. Sincere? Yes.

Gay adoption is unethical. I have nothing against gay marriage, because that is the choice of two partners. However, gay couples adopting a child is to impose their will on that child and not to care about the consequences in the child's development. There is a reason why children have both mother and father figures, and there is a reason why two men or two women cannot reproduce. Gay adoption is simply playing god. It is selfish to want to put a child into an environment where he or she cannot delevop normally. I feel it is appropriate to use the word 'normally,' because normality is based on what is the majority, and the majority is what the child will most deal with in life. Moreover, as I said, gay couples could not otherwise have children. To raise a child in an environment that will put him or her at a disadvantage in life is reckless and selfish. The parents very well may be just as loving as straight parents, but this factor alone does not make it right.

At 3/19/05 05:56 AM, Jerconjake wrote: THE TRUTH

Woohoo! My views on the subject = Your views on the subject. I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING you said. Can I get a "Woot! Woot!" for Jerconjake? ~.^

At 3/19/05 05:56 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Gay adoption is unethical. I have nothing against gay marriage, because that is the choice of two partners. However, gay couples adopting a child is to impose their will on that child and not to care about the consequences in the child's development.

Verse, I would not say that this is "The Truth" given that he has no evidence to back this up... while we have evidence that actually shows that this is wrong, and that children grow up quite healthy in a home run by a homosexual couple. Once you or Jerconjake can actually get some evidence instead of your opinion, then I could be swayed. And even if you WERE able to ascertain said info, I would have to say that I still agree with Gay Adoption, simply because a gay home is better than no home at all.

I am basing my observations on actual first hand accounts, not some faceless college data. In my lifetime, I have known 3 people to grow up with gay parents. One of them was depressed and attempted suicide, another is an introvert with no confidence and the last became gay because it was what he knew. Based on what I have seen with my own eyes, I formed an opinion. There can be no doubt that in all cases the children would be thought of as different because their parents are.

I agree that a gay home is better than no home, but that's not really an issue. There are large waiting lists of people that want to adopt, and it's mostly red tape that keeps them from doing so more quickly.

The only reason we allow gay adoption is because people are all scrambling to be more tolerant, and they're forgetting the issues. We aren't supposed to have 'intolerant' opinions, so they're automatically deemed wrong in every case. The world went from one extreme to the other, and neither is the solution.

At 3/19/05 06:21 PM, Jerconjake wrote: I am basing my observations on actual first hand accounts, not some faceless college data. In my lifetime, I have known 3 people to grow up with gay parents.

A whole THREE people?!?! Gosh, you must be an expert. Your biased, single-person perspective is, obviously, MUCH better than actual fact.

In what way am I biased? I expressed what I have seen, that is all. I very much doubt that a college or university could have the kind of life-long knowledge of a persons development that first hand experience can. Just because a college says it doesn't make it 'actual fact.'

At 3/19/05 06:41 PM, Jerconjake wrote: In what way am I biased?

In the simple, natural way that all humans are: You are expressing an opinion, based on what you have seen. Basing something off of what you have seen makes it subjective. Something subjective is also something biased.

I expressed what I have seen, that is all.

See above.

I very much doubt that a college or university could have the kind of life-long knowledge of a persons development that first hand experience can.

Is that why Universities and Institutions are trusted, and individuals are not?

Just because a college says it doesn't make it 'actual fact.'

LOL.

I am no more biased than you are the other way. Using that against me is rather amusing, since your definition make me no more biased than anyone else alive.

Such institutions are trusted because we are trained to trust them. Universities are not about learning as much as regurgitation. If a student fails to 'learn' the material exactly as it was taught, no matter how good the agrument against it, they fail. This principle translates into how much trust we put into what these institutions say. In terms of gay adoption, people are biased into believing the studies because:

a) They are afraid to be intolerant
b) The aforementioned blind faith in universities
c) They want to believe them for whatever personal reasons

If I had read a study that said that children can and will develop normally with gay parents, my first thought would have been "I'd have to see it to believe it."

At 3/19/05 07:06 PM, Jerconjake wrote: In terms of gay adoption, people are biased into believing the studies because:
a) They are afraid to be intolerant

You obviously know nothing about me. 'Tolerance' is not something I give out for free. Tolerance is earned.

b) The aforementioned blind faith in universities

I've no blind faith in universities. And I don't have blind faith in this particular issue...the studies have been done, however. One presented with a study, and some BBS member's opinion...I'll take the study, thanks.

If I had read a study that said that children can and will develop normally with gay parents, my first thought would have been "I'd have to see it to believe it."

Well, that's because you're close minded. You just admitted that even if they proved it, in a laboratorey, you'd have to 'see it with your own eyes' to believe it.
Stop being shallow.

At 3/19/05 09:26 AM, Tal-con wrote: No, not at all !!

You willingly admit that you find nothing wrong with forcing a child into a sexually immoral environment. Do you have any idea how twisted that sounds (coming from a Christian)?

but their children turned to The Lord anyway.

Many sons also followed in the footsteps of their fathers; I simply don't believe it is moral to place them at that kind of a disadvantage. You apparently think it's fine.

And until you can prove it negatively affects the children, your argument falls flat on it's face.

You're saying that parental ethics do not affect a child. If the parents have good morals, then the child will learn good morals; and if the parents lack good morals, then the child will lack good morals. You underestimate parental influence.

Then why don't all children of heterosexual parents stay heterosexual? My parents have done MANY immoral things, and after seeing them, I made sure I would never do them myself, so once again, your argument falls flat on it's face.

You think that parents don't affect a child AT ALL in the end? Hehe, that's funny. There are two ways our parents affect our entire lives: we inherit their values, we learn from their mistakes. This argument is still up and kicking, my friend.

If there is no short or long term negative affects from having your child raised by homosexuals, then it is a complete possibility that they could be better parents. Dude, listen to the psychologists posting in this thread, they all say you're wrong.

No negative long-term effects have been found because it's a short-term study! That page is dated "1995"; there is no way of knowing the long-term effects. By the way, just because a couple of folks took a class in psychology, that doesn't make them a professor. I, myself, have taken a few courses in psychology...

Yes you can, because it is very possible for a priest or minister to substitute that role of a father.

It is certainly not an equivalent. There is a difference between a "father figure" and an actual father; I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with other male influence, but no one could ever take the place of a real dad.

Of COURSE children need a father figure, but who said it had to come from the actual father?

Because it is THE best thing for the child. No essay can make me believe otherwise.

I'm trying to please God by recognizing that all the sins you named are wrong, but not discriminating against the people who do it.

The U.S. Government does (except for group sex), and I believe that prostitution is illegal in every state save Nevada. If you recall, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their perversion. Would you support legalizing these so-called "sexual preferences"?

Give me a source.

Oh brother. Are you basing the "national view" on the Newgrounds political forum? Harris-Poll is a reliable way to get people's views on the issues; here is your source:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=1

Maybe if you had actual information to support your claims, I wouldn't consider it so radical.

Parents play a pivotal role in influencing a child's character. No one will ever affect our character the way our parents did when we were young... no one can take their place.

Children are EXTREMELY impressionable.

If the parents are sexually immoral, the child will not only know that his/her parents are like this, but he/she will also know that they believe it's acceptable behavior.

A child's first and most impressionable views on sex and morality will come from their sexually immoral parents.

God does NOT like it when people lead children astray as Jesus states in the three of the four Gospels: Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2. Check it out for yourself...

That is why I, as a Christian (from a Christian perspective), oppose this idea.

The VAST majority of Christians can't realize you can believe somethign is wrong and not discriminate against someone at the same time !!

That is why I'm against Bush's ammendment on gay marriage; but like I have said before, gay adoption brings a child into the equation.

Show me The Bible text which says GAY ADOPTION is wrong.

Adoption is never addressed in the Bible AT ALL. I suppose it wasn't a common institution in ancient Palestine, but whatever. I put two and two together (as you have to do with scripture); in the Bible, context is EVERYTHING. But because you don't believe that forcing a child into a sexually immoral environment is "wrong", then nothing I could say would even matter... Isn't that right?

I can't respect what you stand for if you look down on me as an atheist for believing it to be so.

You have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth; I never said you were an atheist. I said that you didn't sound like a Christian because your opinion appears to conflict with commonly-held Christian views. So if I said that you were a false Christian, I apologize... You've shown that you have a basic understanding of the scriptures, so I was wrong. Yep, you heard me right... I SINNED. But because I am covered by the blood of Christ, I am also forgiven! Woohoo! ^_^

You just don't want to admit all The Bible scripture i have to back me up which says "Do not discriminate against those who are different than you".

Umm. "Do to others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" really have nothing to do with this. Different? You said yourself that homosexuality was sinful, and God cannot stand the presence of sin. Like I stated before, if I were 1) homophobic, or 2) discriminatory... then I would also be against gay marriage, which I am not. See my point?

vegetarians

Yes, you are referring to Peter's three experiences.

And also, "Jesus forgave the sexually immoral women".

*sigh*

That is an argument against capital punishment, NOT an argument for gay adoption. Yes, Christ forgave the sexually immoral woman who was about to be stoned; however, you keep forgetting an important puzzle piece: CHILDREN. And for the four millionth, six hundred twenty-seven thousandth, five hundred niety-third time... I do not oppose gay marriage.

You're correct in saying that I know nothing about you. However, how is it that tolerance for gay adoption has been earned in your eyes?

You cannot prove that gay adoption is a good thing in a laboratory. You are simply twisting my words now. Call me shallow, but you are petty.

Had I read a study that said the opposite of what I have seen first hand, I would not just believe it. That's what I said. The lives of the three people I mentioned are not 'opinion,' they are fact. Moreover, there is little doubt that most children with gay parents would have similar hardships in their lives. When their peers are not making life difficult for them, their parents will be overcompensating for those trials. Lots of things sound great on paper, but in practice it's a whole new ballgame. Just look at communism.

At 3/19/05 09:37 AM, Tal-con wrote: THE REAL TRUTH

Your version of it, anyway...

This guy even takes psychology in College, so he has actual data to back him up, so why can't you listen to him?

1) Taking a psychology course does not mean you have factual data to support you.
2) I have taken psychology; you don't listen to me (LoL).
3) Just because someone takes a few courses, that doesn't mean he is an "expert".

Like I stated before, it is very possible for immoral people to raie a moral child. In all due respect, my parents are (or at least were) sexually immoral, I could prove it, but for common decendy I will not.

Of course, it's "possible"; anything is possible. That doesn't mean it's "probable".

Hopefully, some of your common decency will rub off on FLAGG (inside joke). :P

But even though they are/were immoral, I made sure I will not fall into their footsteps in that respect. So to say that all sexually immoral parents will lead their child into a sexually immoral life is just wrong, and I have experience to prove it.

I didn't say that ALL sexually immoral parents will lead their child into a sexually immoral life, but their lack of morality WILL negatively affect the way that child thinks.

At 3/19/05 07:37 PM, Jerconjake wrote: However, how is it that tolerance for gay adoption has been earned in your eyes?

Child in home with gay parents > Institution.
Period. And you can't prove it wrong. Go ahead. I want you to try.

The lives of the three people I mentioned are not 'opinion,' they are fact.

Three people mean nothing. They don't add up to an adequate sample of the population.

Moreover, there is little doubt that most children with gay parents would have similar hardships in their lives.

Prove it. Show me something, besides three sob-stories about children with 'evil gay abusive parents', that would lead me to believe what you're saying.

What do you mean by 'institution?' As in foster care and the likes? If so, then as I said, children are not in foster care because nobody wants to adopt them. There are sometimes two year waiting lists for parents who want to adopt. Gay couples aren't coming to the rescue. If anything, they're adding to an already congested list of potential parents.

Good to know that the lives of three people 'mean nothing.' You can exclude all of the things that oppose your view in this way. Of the three groups of gay parents I have known (two lesbian couples and one gay male couple), the result has been pretty much the same no matter the sex of the parents or the child. They do not represent the whole population, but they do represent what I know first hand. Anything else is conjecture.

Evil, abusive gay parents? You quoted me saying something I didn't say. Are you even listening? I said that the peers of the children will make life difficult for them. The only proof we need for that is that nobody is going to stop people from shunning what is different. Period.

At 3/19/05 08:08 PM, Jerconjake wrote: If so, then as I said, children are not in foster care because nobody wants to adopt them.

Yes, some are.

There are sometimes two year waiting lists for parents who want to adopt.

That is not just 'red tape'. That's to make sure the parent is a viable choice for a particular child.

Gay couples aren't coming to the rescue.

No, they're not. But only because a shallow, self-centered society won't allow it.

If anything, they're adding to an already congested list of potential parents.

FACT: There are more children, waiting to be adopted, then there are potential parents on waiting lists. We need to get as many people as possible to adopt children.

Good to know that the lives of three people 'mean nothing.'

They don't 'mean nothing', on a small-scale. But, when attempting to show an example of a societal-situation, three people is too small of a sample.

Of the three groups of gay parents I have known...

No one cares about those three people. They're a poor example of the whole.

I said that the peers of the children will make life difficult for them.

So? You think being in an adoption center for a decade is better than getting made fun of? And what child DOESN'T face teasing, and mockery, for one thing or another.
That's like saying obese people shouldn't adopt children, because all of the child's peers will make fun of his fat parents.
You're scrounging for reasons.

The only proof we need for that is that nobody is going to stop people from shunning what is different.

That's not proof, and it's irrelevant.
"People will make fun of other people'' is no reason to not do something. The fact is, you have no real reason to be against gay adoption, and you're grasping at straws, and bullshit justifications.

At 3/19/05 06:21 PM, Jerconjake wrote: I am basing my observations on actual first hand accounts...

Well I'm gay, so I have a better and much more intimate experiance of this, especially when I was going to be a father. And one day I will adopt children and love them as my own.

You're basing your accounts on people. You cannot entirely be sure that their problems all stem from homosexual upbringing because you have throughly over looked that fact. And what you described are typical problems that many people face. And from what I have seen and heard, children of gay parents grow up normally. If they're straight, then that's because they're straight. If the children turn out gay, then that's because they're gay-- not because they were influenced. If children of homosexual parents are successful, that's because that's how it is. If the children turn out manic depressive, suicidal, crazy, then that is because that's how they turned out to be.

In other words, homosexual raised children have the same outcomes of heterosexual children. You base your accounts on first hand experiance on only a handful of people with a pre-emptive condenending view on homosexuality. I on the other hand know this much more intimately, and I don't bring in any condensending views at all. Plus I've known and talked to much more people then you have.

Sum things up:

My experiance > your experiance.

All children will face mockary, that's true. However, being the child of gay parents pretty much assures it. Fat people are something else because it's societally acceptable to be fat (which is also appalling).

But how can we expect homosexual parents to teach their children to live a normal life? They cannot understand what it is to be straight, so the world of the children would always be telling them that being gay is what is right. This could deprive them of the ablility to reproduce if they become gay, or at the very least, could very much confuse them on a fundamental level.

What's more, the parents are forced to teach their children that the world will be hostile towards them so that they can be prepared to deal with everyday life. That is sending the wrong message from the get-go. One more worry that a child will have to face.

These things send the message to a child that he or she is different from everyone else, even though they don't feel any different. I do believe that this is exactly the same kind of feeling that gay people have in life. Other than being gay, they don't feel different from their neighbor. In a way, this kind of adoption perpetuates all the the negative without any reason for it.

If there are no other options, then gay parents should adopt. But to suppose that the children will be on a level playing field with other children is folly.

At 3/19/05 09:18 PM, Jerconjake wrote: All children will face mockary, that's true. However, being the child of gay parents pretty much assures it.

So does having poor parents. Does that mean poor families shouldn't adopt children?
Fear of mockery is a stupid reason to be against gay adoption.

But how can we expect homosexual parents to teach their children to live a normal life? They cannot understand what it is to be straight, so the world of the children would always be telling them that being gay is what is right.

How can we expect poor parents to teach their children to live a normal life? They cannot understand what it is to have enough money to get by on, so the world of the children would always be telling them that being poor is what is right.
How can we expect fat parents to teach their children to live a normal life? They cannot understand what it is to be of normal-body-weight, so the world of the children would always be telling them that being fat is right.

Try it again.

What's more, the parents are forced to teach their children that the world will be hostile towards them so that they can be prepared to deal with everyday life.

My parents taught me that the world will be hostile towards me, from a young age. The world is hostile against marijuana, which my parents always used. Society, for some reason, is often hostile towards the lower-class...which we were, up until a few years ago.
Society is hostile against everything. It consumes itself, infinitely. I was raised with the mentality that not everything society says is right. If I can be raised that way, why cannot other children?

If there are no other options, then gay parents should adopt. But to suppose that the children will be on a level playing field with other children is folly.

You've no proof of that. And hasn't proof towards the contrary already been shown?
Where are you getting the basis of your opinion?

At 3/19/05 09:18 PM, Jerconjake wrote: All children will face mockary, that's true. However, being the child of gay parents pretty much assures it. Fat people are something else because it's societally acceptable to be fat (which is also appalling).

And that is why people learn resiliency. That's why we teach tolerence.

But how can we expect homosexual parents to teach their children to live a normal life? They cannot understand what it is to be straight, so the world of the children would always be telling them that being gay is what is right.

What is so abnormal about homosexuals? Homosexuals are human beings, with likes and dislikes, work for a living, and other things. And so what if homosexuals teach that homosexuality is not wrong? I don't feel that heterosexuality is wrong, and I have my reasons for them. I would tell you them, but it wouldn't matter to this post. However, point is that why would it matter if children are able to grow up and tolerate homosexuality?

If anything, that's a virtue.

This could deprive them of the ablility to reproduce if they become gay, or at the very least, could very much confuse them on a fundamental level.

You've asserted that same claim at least twice. And yet several studies, some of which were already posted on the BBS from reliable sources, and a first hand account experiance has proven this not so. Children are not stupid, though we need to teach them. When they're young, all they have to know that homosexuality is a different kind of family love. When they're older, they will eventually understand the mechanics.

It's a crazy assumption to believe that gay parents create gay children. My parents are straight, and I didn't turn out straight. Why would I assume that rearing my own children as a homosexual will turn out homosexual? They could be straight, but it wouldn't matter to me. I would do what my mother, the greatest women and human being I've known, has done for me. Be a stronger person, live the word of Jesus, and love my child.

What's more, the parents are forced to teach their children that the world will be hostile towards them so that they can be prepared to deal with everyday life. That is sending the wrong message from the get-go. One more worry that a child will have to face.

Are you kidding? You don't know the kind of integrity and stength homosexuals possess or the resilency that many of us have built. Any child should be lucky to know that same integrity, strength and power. You say they will learn failure and grief, but you are wrong. Many of us will empower our children, as most parents want to do for their children. That is certainly what I would like for my children, weather they be biologically related, or adopted.

These things send the message to a child that he or she is different from everyone else, even though they don't feel any different. I do believe that this is exactly the same kind of feeling that gay people have in life. Other than being gay, they don't feel different from their neighbor. In a way, this kind of adoption perpetuates all the the negative without any reason for it.

Everyone is different. But everybody gets along when they learn to put away differences.

If there are no other options, then gay parents should adopt. But to suppose that the children will be on a level playing field with other children is folly.

You paint this bad and horrible life of children raised by homosexuals--
yet you insist that if there is no other option, they should be allowed.

But why?
The things you have discribed, it's like leaving a baby with wolves. So why would anyone want to do it?

It's a contradiction.

At 3/19/05 01:56 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: You were all posting to me because I was the only one debating on my side (and people say this board is balanced [LMAO]). I had no intention of "ignoring" the rest of you; I replied as often, to as many people, as I could. I apologize if it appears that I was avoiding you.

I've been on the short end of the debating stick before too. That happens occasionally when you are arguing with people that have different opinions. I say you were ignoring us because Tal-con would make a religious argument and you would respond. The rest of us would try to get you to step out of your religious shell and our posts would go without reply even if there was a direct question in them.

*note - still hasn't replied to any of my pervious arguments*

Religious banter? I hate it when people randomly include their anti-religious views into the topic; we KNOW you don't like Christians, okay? We get the point. I re-stated some of my reasons because I didn't believe that Tal-con understood what I was trying to say.

Religious Banter - Using the basis of religion to bombard the issue with a religious perspective and only a religious perspective. VCV I can level with an issue on a religious perspective, or have you forgotten that I am also a christian that has read the bible? My point is that I am not limited to the narrow means of one faith and one book to argue a topic. I can and have used science and I will use psychology and sociology if it were ever brought up.

You have missed my entire point in my last several posts. I do not hate religion, I do not find it somehow invalid in anyway shape or form. I do, however, find it absolutely necissary to use more than one mindset/subject matter to have an intelligent discussion. Since you for 95% of your argument, if not more, is based purely on religion I find it difficult to have anything relavant or even interesting to say about this subject. As you pointed out already, you are the main opposition to this particular argument and listening to you talking about nothing but your view of god over and over and over again is growing redundant and futile. I bid you adeu till you have something new to say.

At 3/20/05 04:26 AM, jmaster306 wrote: I've been on the short end of the debating stick before too. That happens occasionally when you are arguing with people that have different opinions. I say you were ignoring us because Tal-con would make a religious argument and you would respond. The rest of us would try to get you to step out of your religious shell and our posts would go without reply even if there was a direct question in them.

I place a lot of value on the scriptures. That is why I take my faith into consideration on every political view I have; the Bible is mighty important to me.

*note - still hasn't replied to any of my pervious arguments*

I'm sorry. Could you copy/paste (or whatever) so I can address them?

Religious Banter - Using the basis of religion to bombard the issue with a religious perspective and only a religious perspective. VCV I can level with an issue on a religious perspective, or have you forgotten that I am also a christian that has read the bible? My point is that I am not limited to the narrow means of one faith and one book to argue a topic. I can and have used science and I will use psychology and sociology if it were ever brought up.

You are a Christian (I didn't know that). But now that I think about it, I believe you did say something about being a Catholic in an old thread. My faith is the #1 most important thing in my life (as it should be), so when I believe that a fellow Christian's beliefs conflict with scripture, I make sure to address it and tell them why I believe what I do. And if you are a believer, then I would assume that your faith plays a crucial role in your decision-making.

You have missed my entire point in my last several posts. I do not hate religion, I do not find it somehow invalid in anyway shape or form. I do, however, find it absolutely necissary to use more than one mindset/subject matter to have an intelligent discussion. Since you for 95% of your argument, if not more, is based purely on religion I find it difficult to have anything relavant or even interesting to say about this subject. As you pointed out already, you are the main opposition to this particular argument and listening to you talking about nothing but your view of god over and over and over again is growing redundant and futile. I bid you adeu till you have something new to say.

I believe that the APA study is not complete. Those kinds of studies must include long-term results; as you well know, many psychological effects from childhood do not surface until later in life. The reason you believe that 95% of my reasoning is biblical is because, for the past few days, I have done nothing but argue with Tal-con over the Bible's interpretation of this gay adoption; although this issue isn't directly addressed, I believe that there is enough reason to support the idea that God would disapprove. And though it may appear foolish to you or even politically suicidal (LoL); if the Holy scriptures and psychological findings are contradictory, I'll choose the Bible every time. I know that, though it may sound crazy, God will honor me for my faith; that's how much I believe in the truth of scripture. ^_^

WOW I never thought that this leval if ass hatosity would be reached. I cant believe that people would fight over such a dumb ass thing. If gay parents are held to the same standard as stright parents when it comes to adoption then of course they should be allowed to.

At 3/20/05 11:50 AM, Tal-con wrote:

At 3/19/05 07:33 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/19/05 09:26 AM, Tal-con wrote: No, not at all !!

You willingly admit that you find nothing wrong with forcing a child into a sexually immoral environment. Do you have any idea how twisted that sounds (coming from a Christian)?

Because you can not prove that the sexually immoral environment will have negative effects on the child, that's where your argument falls flat on it's face.

You lack common sense, Tal-con. Any moron knows that we, as human beings, respond to our environment. If I go in a room that is 90 degrees F, guess what? I'm gonna get a little warm. I don't NEED to prove something so basic as this.

Many sons also followed in the footsteps of their fathers; I simply don't believe it is moral to place them at that kind of a disadvantage. You apparently think it's fine.

There's a difference between having a child live in the house of a deranged murderer, and a homosexual. The APA link clearly says homosexuality means no lack of judgement, so if the child still thinks it's wrong, then they can do so.

That's my point; the child doesn't know better. I don't give a damn what the APA link says about morals; my views on morality are derived from scripture, not the APA.

You're saying that parental ethics do not affect a child. If the parents have good morals, then the child will learn good morals; and if the parents lack good morals, then the child will lack good morals. You underestimate parental influence.

That is BULLSHIT.

You are BULLSHIT. :P

My parents don't have good morals and some respects and I still becqame religious. But yeah, parental influence can affect a child, but can you prove that applies to homosexuality as well?

Are you a child? Children are impressionable and tend to believe in anything and everything their parents believe in. Dude, why do you admit that everything affects a child except their parents' moral code? Moral values are usually inherited. You're the exception, not the rule.

Then why don't all children of heterosexual parents stay heterosexual? My parents have done MANY immoral things, and after seeing them, I made sure I would never do them myself, so once again, your argument falls flat on it's face.

You think that parents don't affect a child AT ALL in the end? Hehe, that's funny. There are two ways our parents affect our entire lives: we inherit their values, we learn from their mistakes. This argument is still up and kicking, my friend.

That's not true, children do not always inherit values from their parents. I am very different from my parents in many respects.

Not always, but usually. Most children adopt a moral code similar to that of their parents.

No negative long-term effects have been found because it's a short-term study!

But thsi psychologist is telling you this NOW. Not when the study was taken. He's tellign you right here, right now, that you're wrong. PROVE TO ME, that there are negative effects of having a homosexual parent. PROVE IT. UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE I'M WRONG, then you have no argument. You can only give vauge assumptions. Give me a source which supports your hypothesis, go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG.

Right now? That page is copyrighted 1995, and it proves NOTHING. Most children involved with that study have probably not even reached adolescence = short term. Nothing can be proven because it's such a radically "new" idea; not enough data has been collected. How many times must I say that psychological studies (in order to be accepted as fact) must cover both the short-term and long-term effects; both are necessary to form an educated an educated stance on major psychological issues.

I, myself, have taken a few courses in psychology...

And yet you have NO PROOF that I'm wrong. How funny.

And yet you have NO PROOF that I'm wrong... how ironic. Of all the people debating on the pro side of this issue, you have the worst grasp of the subject. Why don't you just step aside and let your intellectual superiors fight your case for you?

It is certainly not an equivalent.

It certainly is.

You like arguing, huh?

There is a difference between a "father figure" and an actual father; I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with other male influence, but no one could ever take the place of a real dad.

Yes, it is very possible for someone to take the place of a real dad. You don't have to concieve the child to act like a dad, anyone can care for a child.

Oh please. An adoptive father is a "father", and an adoptive mother is a "mother". Umm, a child's friend or minister cannot actually "care" for him, you know. No one can take the place of a mother or father because they are the child's caretakers and guardians; all other influences are great, but no alternatives can take the place of a 'real' mom or a 'real' dad.

At 3/20/05 11:54 AM, Tal-con wrote:

Because it is THE best thing for the child. No essay can make me believe otherwise.

And you determine what's best for the child? American law should go by YOUR opinion, and not scientific fact? That's kinda ignorant if you ask me.

One short-term study does NOT = scientific fact.

The U.S. Government does (except for group sex), and I believe that prostitution is illegal in every state save Nevada. If you recall, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their perversion. Would you support legalizing these so-called "sexual preferences"?

Once again, the APA link clearly says that being homosexual does not constitue a lack of judgement, that is why necrophelia is illegal and homosexuality is not.

I don't base my opinions on sexual immorality on the APA; I base them on the Bible. But if that essay says that "homosexuality does not constitute a lack of judgement", then it is clearly biased; therefore, I refuse to listen to a word of it. Thanks for enlightening me...

Give me a source.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=1

Those polls were taken in 2000, before gay marriage became such a pressing issue on our nation, as I'm sure you can recall. People's opinions change, and if you can't give me a recent poll, why should i believe it?

Oh COME ON, dude. Gay adoption has been a controversial for as long as the issue has existed; this isn't anything new. And for a poll dealing with moral values, 2000's poll cannot be radically different from 2005's poll. You just can't accept that most people have a problem with homosexuals adopting children. Deal with it, dude...

Parents play a pivotal role in influencing a child's character. No one will ever affect our character the way our parents did when we were young... no one can take their place.

Once again, children can have another figure figure other than that of their biological father.

How can you possibly compare the "local postman" to a REAL DAD? That's ridiculous.

If the parents are sexually immoral, the child will not only know that his/her parents are like this, but he/she will also know that they believe it's acceptable behavior.

WRONG, my parents are/were sexually immoral, and I'm perfectly fine.

You're a young, naive, impressionable child? *So that explains it...*

A child's first and most impressionable views on sex and morality will come from their sexually immoral parents.

WRONG AGAIN, see above.

You did not "originally" believe that your parents were immoral, did you? Children simply don't think that way. ALL children, when they are little, think the best of their parents.

God does NOT like it when people lead children astray as Jesus states in the three of the four Gospels: Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2. Check it out for yourself...

I know it's wrong to lead children astray, but if a child had a heterosexual father/mother figure other than that of his gay parents, there's no way of proving that the child would go to the wrong example and not the right one.

A child is more likely to trust his/her parents than anyone else, isn't that so?

Adoption is never addressed in the Bible AT ALL.

I know that, that's my point.

Some point, you got there. <_<

But because you don't believe that forcing a child into a sexually immoral environment is "wrong", then nothing I could say would even matter... Isn't that right?

It is wrong, but like I said before, there are many other places a child could look for a father/mother figure other than his parents.

A child shouldn't be forced to look elsewhere.

You have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth; I never said you were an atheist.

You sure as Hell implied it.

*sigh* When did I call you an atheist? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

I said that you didn't sound like a Christian because your opinion appears to conflict with commonly-held Christian views.

No, it conflicts with commonly-held conservative views, there's a difference.

Hehe. Most Christians have morally conservative views, you know.

Umm. "Do to others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" really have nothing to do with this.

Yes it does, if you look at it metaphorically. "Love your neighbor as thyself" can be translated to "Treat your neighbor and you would want yourself treated".

Huh? I still fail to see how those relate to gay adoption. Like I said before, I support gays being allowed to receive the same benefits under the government. Discrimination isn't always "bad", though; I'm not talking about sexual, ethnic, or racial discrimination. I'm referring to morals and ethics... No discrimination = anarchy.

That is an argument against capital punishment, NOT an argument for gay adoption. Yes, Christ forgave the sexually immoral woman who was about to be stoned;

But it always proves my point, along with thatr capital punishment is wrong, because her sexual sins were forgiven.

You keep forgetting the "keyword" = CHILDREN.

At 3/20/05 12:01 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 3/19/05 07:44 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Your version of it, anyway...

Which happens to be the right one ^.~

That's YOUR opinion...

Like I stated before, it is very possible for immoral people to raie a moral child. In all due respect, my parents are (or at least were) sexually immoral, I could prove it, but for common decendy I will not.

Of course, it's "possible"; anything is possible. That doesn't mean it's "probable".

Prove it's not probable.

*rolls eyes so hard, it hurts*

Prove that children living in a household of gay parents have a higher chance of becoming homosexual. Please, I insist.

Do I really NEED to prove it? The parents' views (whether spititual, moral, political, ethical, etc.) often do "rub off" on their child. Like I said before, you're an exception. By the way, I didn't imply that they would raise a homosexual child; I said that the child would be more likely to become sexually immoral if their parents were. Children often idolize their parents, and sometimes, they can't imagine their father or mother doing something "wrong". For some children, it's a difficult concept to grasp.

Ok, here's something to think about.

What are your views on lesbian couples who have have their own kids through sperm doners?
Should kids in that situation be taken away from their natural mother to be adopted by straight parents. After all, the child would be growing up with same-sex parents.
The same could be applied to gay men who have their own kids through a surrogate mother.

I would be particularly interested to hear verse's views on this... If he and tal-con can stop arguing for two seconds that is.

I can summarise the correct view on the subject for everyone:
There is a best, or ideal, situation. Knowing what it is, we should be trying to ensure that this is the situation that as many children as possible are in, and that those who cannot be provided with this ideal should be provided with the next best alternative.