I agree Tracy. I wish I had something more profound and supporting to say on the issue, but frankly, I'm totally speechless at the sheer stupidity of some of the attitudes presented in this thread.
Adopted Children Forced Into Gay Lifestyle
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
I agree Tracy. I wish I had something more profound and supporting to say on the issue, but frankly, I'm totally speechless at the sheer stupidity of some of the attitudes presented in this thread.
Now that we have or have not rewarded the adults by giving or not giving them children, would someone, anyone, please take into account, the children. What I have heard and seen, is that children have become schoolyard terrorists, dedicated to singling out and destroying those they find to be different. Did Columbine and all the other incidents happen, or are they some kind of fabrication? This is the major failure of political correctness, all too often the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Even if the children are placed in the best of circumstances, the schoolyard will still end up being the proving ground, and these schoolyards are getting far worse, not better. This country is not becoming a better place for children, it is worse, possibly due to the parents being more interested in talking an ideal world as opposed to creating one. Does no one see what has happened here? The world is falling down around us, and no one even attempts to consider the realities. Political correctness will fall by the wayside when people finally realise that the real world doesn't concern itself with being on the high ground, it does concern itself with what works. I should never have posted on this thread, because I knew it would end up like this.
That argument would make sense if the children involved in those incidents were the adopted children of homosexual couples. But, they weren't.
What it boils down to in the end is, you get the parents you get, so suck it up. They might cause you embarassment, yes. Biological or adopted, straight or homosexual, you might get teased mercilessly because of something they do, say, or are. Do we put the onus on the parents to fit some cookie cutter ideal? Do we put the onus on society to smarten the f__k up, and watch out for the kind of bullying these kids are enduring? Or do we perhaps, and here's a novel idea, put the onus on the parents to make sure their kids have the tools to deal? Now there's a PC concept for you.
Karrie, it wasn't an argument, it was a statement. Teaching the kids to have the tools to deal with things isn't politically correct, its common sense. Whether the kids came from one type of parentage or another is immaterial, what matters is, the parents of any kind have done a piss poor job of it, and the kids are suffering for it.
Indeed, a valid point tracy. Please keep in mind I was talking to the science of this thread, not the economics.
Besides, law or no law - do you think people aren't going to be making money selling sperm or eggs or surrogacy? Do you think they're not now?
Of course they are.
Pangloss
Though there is some underground compensation no doubt, it is illegal and not common. That means that a lot of Canadian couples have to come to the US to get it done. The penalties in Canada for breaking those laws are quite severe.
In certain cases it will be "Sperm donors and egg donors and deadbeat dads and bio parents who aren't involved... none of them are parents. They are genetic donors." who can save your life or cause a heartache a mile wide. We weren't talking about a 'kid in a can' we were talking about a child who is put up for adoption for one reason or another. The ones you so candidly dismiss as being unimportant may have gone through some 'serious emotional stuff' in relation to giving up a child in the first place.
It still boils down to, if not for "Sperm donors and egg donors and deadbeat dads and bio parents who aren't involved... none of them are parents. They are genetic donors." you wouldn't be around to have been up for adoption.
Would you still feel that way about some parents whose child ended up being adopted because they happened to be killed in a car crash and they had no close relatives?
What about the parents who gave their kids up simple because they didn't have the finances to raise them 'properly', do you see them as being selfish and uncaring?
How did your adoptive parents refer to your 'natural parents', did they refer to them as 'parents' or is it just your bitterness towards 'your natural relatives' that makes it repulsive to have the word 'parent' associated with them in any context? Not every child can forgive their DNA parents for abandoning them, no matter the reason.
Trust me, I honor the contribution my birth parents made to me. I am very grateful they gave me up and I don't have any bitterness towards them at all. They didn't abandon me, they gave me a good set of parents. My birth mom and I talk on the phone at least once a week. Even she knows that she isn't my mom, though. She'd be the last person to argue she should be called my parent or have the same relationship with me that I have with my mom. That simply isn't her role in my family and she's a lot more respectful of that than some people who have no first hand knowledge of adoption. She gave up the role of my parent when she gave me up for adoption. There is a reason I don't call her mom... I already have a mom. You can't meet a person as an adult and form a parent-child relationship with them. It isn't bitterness that makes me dispute people who would call my real family fake, it's wanting to explain the reality. Legally, morally, socially, emotionally... my birth parents aren't my real parents. We don't have a parent child relationship because they never parented me. My adoptive parents did. They are the ones who raised me, loved me, fed me, clothed me, encouraged me, taught me, supported me... They are my real parents in every way but genetics and genetics just don't matter as much as everything else that makes a parent a parent.
BTW, my adoptive parents were never disparaging about my birth parents (just as my birth parents have never been disparaging about my adoptive parents). They refered to them with those words. It was actually my dad who found my birth parents for me when I was 19.
Zzarch - I was wondering how long you'd be able to resist correcting his rather daft mistake.
Pangloss
Pangloss
Tracy, I'm really happy for you in that it all worked out.
Would anything be different from the way things are now if you had come as a new-born into a gay marriage and your DNA entities knew exactly who they were giving you to?
Even the Jews would agree with MT. The women are to remain silent while in "Church" and let the men speak. That is on the Sabbath which comes one a week.
Do you really think the women are at all silent for those other 6 days?
Now you want there to be more than one wife, since they are the masters of the house you get to do things for them, maybe even many things X 2.
Since you are probably already familiar with most of the stories of polygamy you know none of them had a very happy ending for anybody involved.
If you have an example of one that did end well please give me a reference verse.
When claiming the promised land many lands were taken, sometimes only the female children were saved. They then married their captors, some as something other than the first wife, so that might be an instance of some 'good' in that even those would have been slain if the one wife rule applied. If God favored more than one wife the flood would have been a perfect time to save more than the 8 that were saved.
De:17:17:
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself,
that his heart turn not away:
neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
De:17:18:
And it shall be,
when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom,
that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
De:17:19:
And it shall be with him,
and he shall read therein all the days of his life:
that he may learn to fear the LORD his God,
to keep all the words of this law and these statutes,
to do them:
This is a reference to one wife,
Proverb:18:22:
Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing,
and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
Psalms:128:3:
Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house:
thy children like olive plants round about thy table.
If you then read about divorce there are only certain things that qualify as a legit divorce according to Scripture. If not done right there none, even then if a person 'remarries' it is considered adultery. That doesn't seem to promote multiple wives.
M't:19:9:
And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another,
committeth adultery:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
20 min (I had already read the stories on Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David, and Solomon)
Those talk about having one way, they don't disallow multiple wives. Now, in terms of ALLOWING multiple wives, we have
Deuteronomy 21:15 - Details on multiple wives and right of inheritence
Exodus 21:10 - Telling you how to deal with the multiple wives you have
King David, King Solomon and his kid Rehoboan all had multiple wives and concubines. David was blessed by god himself.
Deuteronomy 21:15 - Details on multiple wives and right of inheritence
Exodus 21:10 - Telling you how to deal with the multiple wives you have
King David, King Solomon and his kid Rehoboan all had multiple wives and concubines. David was blessed by god himself.
Last edited:
The first reference has to deal with taking a captive for a wife. You would have to fulfill these things
De:21:10:
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies,
and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands,
and thou hast taken them captive,
De:21:11:
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,
and hast a desire unto her,
that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
De:21:12:
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
and she shall shave her head,
and pare her nails;
De:21:13:
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her,
and shall remain in thine house,
and bewail her father and her mother a full month:
and after that thou shalt go in unto her,
and be her husband,
and she shall be thy wife.
De:21:14:
And it shall be,
if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go whither she will;
but thou shalt not sell her at all for money,
thou shalt not make merchandise of her,
because thou hast humbled her.
There isn't a lot of that going on today is there?
If you diminish what the first one had she is free to leave her husband.
David's 'at home' life was anything but blessed, neither was Solomon's, turmoil is a more apt term.
Never the less, other than saying you can't divorce and remarry, and that ministers, deacons etc shall have only one wife, there is examples of mandatory polygamy in the Old Testament (Which Jesus states are still to be obeyed except when the NT overrules it), and even in the NT Jesus uses polygamy in his examples (such as the Bridgegroom who marries five virgins).
So while it may not be shown as the best of the best, it is none the less allowed, in much the same way its biblically ok to slap yourself in the face..not that you should.
Edit: Before we drift too far from topic:
If you don't defend what is all in the bible because it hurts you to do so (ie, there are female preachers), why would you defend parts of the bible that harm others. Seems like a double standard where self interest is the only divider.
So while it may not be shown as the best of the best, it is none the less allowed, in much the same way its biblically ok to slap yourself in the face..not that you should.
Edit: Before we drift too far from topic:
If you don't defend what is all in the bible because it hurts you to do so (ie, there are female preachers), why would you defend parts of the bible that harm others. Seems like a double standard where self interest is the only divider.
The punishment for sin changed in the NT, no more stoning to death, another thing also changed. A person is now in sin as soon as the thought is present (in the OT you had to actually do something physically), in this one example below it covers one type of sin, all other sins will be judged in the same way.
M't:5:27:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery:
M't:5:28:
But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Jas:2:10:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all.
Jas:2:11:
For he that said,
Do not commit adultery,
said also,
Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery,
yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Got any examples of actual people in the NT as having more than one wife? Parables aren't about real people.
Hopefully the OP won't mind a few posts, if this was going to be a long deviation we could start on another thread. As it is I think we're close to being done.
I don't have a problem accepting that women have played very important roles in Scripture. Since I reject some men as being 'knowledgeable' preachers I don't see how that would change with a gender change, truth is truth be it from man, woman, or a child.
Why would I defend parts of the Bible that (has already) harmed others? In the OT God ordered quite a few people to be put to the sword. If they are raised back to life when everybody else is (be it at the start of the thousand years or at the Great White Throne) then God took their breath away shortly before old age would have.
Do those people qualify as be 'beheaded for the word of God'? If so, Re:20:4 has them coming back to life for the thousand years. Killed as an example to Israel of God's ability to have influence in man's affairs, and win every time.
An even more important reason (in that God could have used some other method) was to set an example for Christ as to what He will do on the first Day of His return. God showed Christ how to sent people to the grave. Just like all things Jesus has done, it was shown to Him (taught) before He does those things, in this case some time in our future.
Joh:8:28:
Then said Jesus unto them,
When ye have lifted up the Son of man,
then shall ye know that I am he,
and that I do nothing of myself;
but as my Father hath taught me,
I speak these things.
Matthew 5:17-18
Read it, the Old Testament still stands except where replaced by the new. The New testament never prohibits polygamy, the old testament allows it and occassionaly mandates it. Therefore it is not only allowed in the new testament, it is still mandatory in some (albeit rare) instances.
It is disallowed for a woman to speak in church, therefore, you cannot have a female preacher. That little bit is ignored though, so why then only hold up the bits that attack others, but not yourself.
Read it, the Old Testament still stands except where replaced by the new. The New testament never prohibits polygamy, the old testament allows it and occassionaly mandates it. Therefore it is not only allowed in the new testament, it is still mandatory in some (albeit rare) instances.
It is disallowed for a woman to speak in church, therefore, you cannot have a female preacher. That little bit is ignored though, so why then only hold up the bits that attack others, but not yourself.
Zzarchov:
Why do you bother? MHZ has no sense of humour, proportion, humility, or intellectual honesty.
Why bother? He repeats himself, will not admit when he is wrong (thus dooming "debate" with him to an endless series of "you're wrong" - "no, you're wrong" cycles), and finally, he is no damned fun.
Leave the fool to argue with himself.
Pangloss
Why do you bother? MHZ has no sense of humour, proportion, humility, or intellectual honesty.
Why bother? He repeats himself, will not admit when he is wrong (thus dooming "debate" with him to an endless series of "you're wrong" - "no, you're wrong" cycles), and finally, he is no damned fun.
Leave the fool to argue with himself.
Pangloss
My life would have been different obviously. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that though. Had I been raised by a gay couple, I'd love them same as I love my parents. That decision was for my birth mother to make, not anyone else. That's one of the rights she has as my biological mother. I think it's disrespectful to all birth parents to say that you should be the one to tell them where they can place their biological children. If you don't want gay couples adopting, you don't have to give them any children to adopt, simple as that.
If they are there to learn then they wouldn't be a teacher, they would be sitting on the benches,
1Co:14:35:
And if they will learn any thing,
let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
These women did speak with authority concerning Scripture,
Ro:16:1:
I commend unto you Phebe our sister,
which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Ro:16:2:
That ye receive her in the Lord,
as becometh saints,
and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you:
for she hath been a succourer of many,
and of myself also.
Ro:16:3:
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Ac:9:36:
Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha,
which by interpretation is called Dorcas:
this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
Tabitha was raised from the dead in the passage that verse is from. One more example below that women were 'gatherers of people' to Christ.
2Jo:1:13:
The children of thy elect sister greet thee.
Amen.
Nice summation, I can live with that.