Gay Adoption

Squid has claimed multiple times heriein that he thinks it's OK to "not like" homosexuality. It's his personal taste, and who but himself can dictate his taste?

Well, if we grant Squid's argument, we must also grant the following arguments as well, as a matter of "personal taste" ---

That it's OK to "not like" someone's "blackness"
That it's OK to "not like" someone's "Jewishness"
That it's OK to "not like" someone's "blondeness"
That it's OK to "not like" someone's "mental retardation"
That it's OK to "not like" someone's "overweightedness"
That it's OK to "not like" someone's "over-muscledness"

In other words, it's OK to "not like" differences in other people.

Personally, I regard ANY dislike of ANY difference in another person as exceedingly immature and unvarnished bigotry, and NEVER OK.

It is NOT a matter of "taste."

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Some interesting reading from the net web addy and the bottom:



The homosexual movement has gained immense political and cultural power during the past 20 years [using] a mixture of in-
timidation, misinformation, & lies to change laws & to gain footholds within the media, government, & our educational system.34
The Homosexual Movement Endangers The Whole Fabric of American Society
What once was considered a deviant perversion, is now politically correct. Woe to those who oppose this new "rainbow" morality. Those who disagree with this new "alternative' lifestyle are called "hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted homophobes." - Stephen Bennett23 Sound familiar?

"The homosexual movement is really an outgrowth of . . . the broader humanistic revolution that has swept this country to the point that people cannot say anything is right or wrong; everything is geared toward tolerance, and there is no truth. You are allowed to look for it, but you can't find it because then you are narrow and bigoted. It's the end game of liberalism itself that says that the individual is the sovereign authority, not God." - Robert Knight, Homosexuality in an Age of Consent31
"Fight for same-sex 'marriage' and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely . . . to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." - homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile13

The power of the homosexual movement is built upon two key lies-or Urban Legends-to gain and keep its political and cultural victories. The first lie is that homosexuals are "born gay" and cannot change. The second is that "10% of the population" is homosexual and that we must encourage and protect this 10% from "discrimination."33

[T]he claim that 10% of the total population is engaged in the homosexual lifestyle is false. The most accurate recent studies show the actual figure to be 1.5 - 2%!

The gay gene - the idea that gays are born that way is being blown apart. The Boston Globe, one of the most liberal papers in all America, ran an article recently saying that lots of doubt has been cast on the gay gene. There just isn't scientific evidence for it.31

The truth is no one is born "gay" - no one. In most all cases one's homosexuality has everything to do with childhood.3

"...The consistency of the median age of death for homosexuals indexed by the obituaries of 18 independent homosexual journals over an eleven year period, suggests an average life span located in the mid 40s if AIDS fails to intervene, late 30s-to-early-40s if it does. The more limited evidence regarding lesbian deaths suggests an average life-span of under 50 years."15

Scientific research has uncovered the following statistics about the gay lifestyle and heath risks22
Practices or Heath Issues Gay Community General Community
Having used IV drugs and less than 25 years of age 16% 1.5%
Engaged in prostitution 24% 0.66%
Having a lifetime STDs prevalence 70% 4%
Percentage of Alcholholism 27% 11%
Median number of partners 38 per year
Having a brief or no knowledge of partners 90%
Involved in whipping, sadism or masochism 21%
Of those with HIV, having anogenital warts 92%
Of those not having HIV and having anogenital warts 76%
Acquired multiple wart virus subtypes, within 17 months 75%
Involved in 'rimming' (mouth to anus contact) 61%
Having anal pre-cancer 18% 0.03%
Having HIV ( < 25 years 10%, > 25 years 24% ) 21.8%
Average age of death from AIDS 35.7 years
Expected average life span 45 years 70 years



The average homosexual relationship can be characterized as highly unstable and promiscuous. Homosexuals represent hedonism in its most extreme form, with one-night stands and brief flings offering constant excitement and variety. An exhaustive 1978 Kinsey Institute study of homosexuality showed that 28 percent of homosexual males had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more males. And 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Almost half of the white homosexual males said that they had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers.'' A 1982 study of AIDS victims by the US Centers for Disease Control found that 1,100 sexual partners was about average, with some reporting as many as 20,000 partners.22

Homosexuals have high death rates not only from AIDS but also from violence, substance abuse, accidents, cancer, suicide, and murder15

Does it help if homosexuals stay together over time? "No evidence that having a homosexual longtime sexual partner (LTSP) might be protective of the participants' health surfaced. These data lend no support to the notion of public health benefits from homosexual marriage."15


Troy Perry, of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, told The Dallas Morning News, "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses."8

A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that he is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.8


The journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, where "gay marriage" has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that "partnered" homosexuals have "outside" lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This puts more young people at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.19


"The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner." (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," No. 15, 1991.)19

There is nothing "gay" about being "gay." Many homosexual men and women, when brutally honest, would also agree.3


WAS GAY MARRIAGE DEMOCRAT'S UNDOING?
Dallas Morning News, November 2004

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Gay and lesbian advocates have been doing some soul-searching since
President Bush's victory, wondering whether same-sex wedding marches through San Francisco and Massachusetts tipped the scales to Republicans promising to restore traditional values.

"I think it hurt," said Rep. Barney Frank, a gay Democrat from Massachusetts, the state that set off the firestorm last year when its high court ruled that gay couples have the right to wed.

Mr. Frank is among many political observers who credit the anti-gay marriage amendments with giving the president's conservative base a reason to go to the polls in battleground states like Ohio.

"It gives them a position to rally around," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who once served as San Francisco's mayor. "That whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon. People aren't ready for it."

Crunching the numbers, the: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force denies that gay marriage:
alone boosted turnout among evangelical Christians in Oregon, Ohio and Michigan, swing states where constitutional amendments were on the ballot. Bush voters also were motivated by the president's stance on abstinence-only sex education and a ban on late-term abortions, said Matthew Foreman, the group's executive director.

"It's sickening and fascinating that when one in five voters said 'moral values' was the most
important ... pundits immediately equated that with gay marriage alone," he said.

"To scapegoat people for having the audacity to ask for equality is outrageous," said Geoffrey
Kors, executive director of gay rights group Equality California.
The Gay Spin on the Bible

The 77,000-member Metropolitan Community Church, founded by openly homosexual Baptist minister Troy Perry preaches that the Bible is full of errors that have resulted from being copied, recopied, and translated over and over again. Homosexual behavior is not a sin in God's eyes. Instead, the teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful is the result of twisted teaching of "homophobic" men. The references to homosexual behavior in the Bible really don't mean what they say.38

However as more modern translations are made the more through they are in research to oldest and reliable Old and New Testament writings. Quotations on this page are from the New International Version (NIV) and the Amplified Bible (AMP).

Claim:
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because of homosexual behavior but because the people there ignored the poor and needy.38 (A program on the Discovery Channel said it was because the residents of the towns were inhospitable to strangers.)
Facts: (Sodom and Gormorrah and homosexuality in general)
"The Cities of the Plain" were not exclusively populated by homosexuals or they would have soon disappeared from history. The various Canaanite tribes all had abandoned the God of their forefathers not long after the Flood of Noah. The people had gone after the worship of pagan gods, and they were highly sexually promiscuous.39

Sodom is a city which illustrates what Paul describes in Romans Chapter One: a culture with blatant sexual immorality, promiscuity, violence and open debauchery. One has only to read a bit further in Romans to discover that Sodom's sin is but one class of evil which God condemns and opposes.39

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." (Genesis 1:4-8 NIV)

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:26-27 NIV)

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7 NIV) The behavior judged was "ungodliness" -- a violation of the order of creation: sexual relationships only between man and wife in marriage meet with God's approval.39

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)

Neglecting the poor or being inhospitable is shameful, but to say that God destroyed Sodom because of either of these two behaviors cheapens God.


Claim:
[The] Levitical condemnation of homosexuality was only meant to keep Israel separate from the surrounding nations -- and thus did not reflect God's universal disapproval of such activity.6
Facts:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)

In their book, The Same Sex Controversy, James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell disagree with this claim, insisting that Leviticus codifies for Israel how God felt about homosexuality in a universal sense. The proof? The Lord had pronounced judgment upon the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Promised Land for committing these very same sins. Because the Canaanite nations had "done all these abominations," the inhabitants had defiled the land (Leviticus 18:25, 27 NIV), and were to be expelled.6

"[T]hese were nations that did not have the Law of God given to them on tablets of stone, yet God still held them responsible for their immoral behavior," White and Niell argue. "Unquestionably, God's prohibition of homosexuality wasn't only a Jewish matter -- it was something that transcended ethnic boundaries."6

If the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to all men everywhere, what about the other sins in Leviticus -- such as adultery, bestiality, incest, and prostitution?6

Clearly, White and Niell suggest, "such practices are immoral and reprehensible wherever they may occur, whatever the address or the locale."6

The [Mosaic] Law reveals the kind of Person God is -- His holiness and moral perfection. The Law is diagnostic as far as mankind is concerned: the Law shows us our deep need for God's grace. The Law was designed to bring us to God for mercy and help to overcome the morally bankrupt state of affairs we were all born with. Behind the Law is a loving Creator and Redeemer who desires to heal and to restore any one of us who will but call out to Him for help. Jesus fulfills the demands of the Law in us and for us when we grant Him the freedom to rule our hearts and lives39.


Claim:
Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers.38
Facts:
"We note the covenant friendship between David and Jonathan. This was a form of relationship made in the presence of the Lord, in which each party accepted obligations toward the other; it was regarded as being of the same order as blood relationship. It was such that it could be described as the knitting together of the souls of the two men (1 Samuel 18:1), by which was meant that the very being of the one was extended into and embraced the personality of the other; each became the other's alter ego."41

After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." (2 Samuel 5:13 NIV)

David also had an affair with Bathsheeba and and fathered a child by her. (2 Samuel 11:1-28 NIV) Hardly the actions of a gay man.


Claim:
Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers.38
Facts:
Naomi was a Moabite who married a man named Elimelech. She had two sons. Both of the sons married Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. Naomi's sons died after two years, leaving Orpah and Ruth widowed. In time, Naomi decided to return to Judah. (Ruth 1:3-5 NIV)

Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in law (emphasis added), "go back, each of you to your mother's home . . . May the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband." (Ruth 1:8 NIV)

Ruth begged Naomi to accompany her back to Judah. (Ruth 1:10 NIV). After returning to Judah with Ruth, Naomi did her best to "fix her up" with Boaz, a relative on her husband's side. Ruth (2:1 - 3:18 NIV)

"So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. Then he went in to her and the Lord enabled her to conceive and she gave birth to a son. The women said to Naomi: "Praise be to the Lord who this day has not left you without a kinsman-redeemer . . . For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better than seven sons, has given him birth. . . . And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jessie, the father of David." (Ruth 4:13-17 NIV)

Nowhere does the Bible even suggest that Ruth and Naomi had a lesbian relationship.


Claim:

Christ lived an alternative lifestyle and he loved other men besides John.38
Facts:

In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was present originally with God. All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. [T]he Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth. (John 1:1,14 AMP)

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30 NIV) Jesus was God incarnate.

There are many meanings to the word Love and many different ways for love to be expressed; the love of, or for, a child, the love shared between life partners, the love of food, of learning or of new experiences. There is above all else, the love of God and His love for us, his children. There is no love as fulfilling as God's love. His love is complete, never ending and unconditional.49

The beloved disciple may not have even been John; there are some hints that he may have been Lazarus instead.50 The Amplified Bible describes the type of love that Jesus had for him. At the last supper:

One of His disciples, whom Jesus loved [whom He esteemed and delighted in], was reclining [next to Him] on Jesus' bosom. (John 13:23 AMP)

Jesus did live an alternative lifestyle: He was God incarnate and the only man who ever lived who did not sin. God, himself, condemned homosexuality as a sin. So it is illogical that Jesus was homosexual.

Jesus never "tolerated" or "accepted" sin. While His response to sin was swift and sometimes harsh, His motive was always one of unconditional love. Jesus didn't "pussy foot" around, fearful He may "offend" someone or worried He may appear "hate-filled," "intolerant" or "bigoted." No, Jesus called it like it was: sin is sin is sin. Many times He openly exhibited a holy, righteous anger and zeal for "His Father's business."3


Claim:
Christ wore a purple robe to the cross as a connotation of his homosexuality.38
Facts:
"The solders led Jesus away from the palace . . . and called together the whole company of solders. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. . . . And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe (emphasis added) and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him." (Mark 15:18-20)

(Matthew 27:28 says the color of the robe was "scarlet.")

Rome, Egypt, and Persia all used purple as the imperial standard. Purple dyes were rare and expensive; only the rich had access to them. The purple colorants used came from different sources, most from the dye extraction from fish or insects. -- Dr. Richard M. Podhajny, Ph.D., History, Shellfish, Royalty, and the Color Purple25

Had Jesus actually worn a purple robe to the cross it would have been a witness of his Kingship, not his sexual orientation



Was gay marriage Democrats' undoing?
"Over the years, the greatest victory for homosexuals has been their cultural transformation into victims, thus spawning public sympathy. [But their biggest battle is] to regard homosexuality as essentially no different from heterosexuality and to accord homosexual relationships the status, benefits, and privileges reserved for marriage." - Robert H. Knight: The Homosexual Surge15


The homosexual rights movement is like a runaway train racing down a mountain pass. For several decades, this train has been gaining steam, but it was not until the last few years that its speed began to increase exponentially. The train is still largely out of sight, so most people are unaware of the destruction that is headed their way. But if you listen closely, you can hear the train approaching. It is coming closer with each passing day

For more info:
http://www.straight-talk.net/gay/facts.shtml

 

"Maybe someone should ask a straight, normal, kid if they would want to be adopted by a gay or lesbian"
OK So I did, my son. He is 12 straight and as normal as you can be after 7 years in DSS having been in 13 foster homes, two of which were failed adoptions by man/woman married dare I say Christian couples. I am single, not dating for 5 years now. My son moved in when he was 9, I was able to formally adopt him when he was 10. He is very aware of adoption and how other foster kids feel about it. He looked over my shoulder at the topic and so I asked him "What do you think about being adopted by a gay or lesbian couple?" His reply, "It would be OK by me." I asked "Would it be better than foster care?" He said "It would to me but there are some foster kids who like living in foster care. Some kids wouldn't like itl"
Marie, mom to a fantastic kid! Who said it would be OK to post this BTW.

 

Marie~

Nice Avatar

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ May 15 2006, 08:18 PM) [snapback]255977[/snapback]</div>

Yeah It's a bit flashy But then so am I in my new Prius :lol:

 

If you claim you don't dislike anyone for reasons you've stated above, you're simply lying to yourself in an effort to be politically correct and go with the crowd. Raise your hand if you would date an obese retarded black woman. Answer honestly.... :lol:
[/quote]


Hell noooo :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 10:02 PM) [snapback]256043[/snapback]</div>

Gee MS now you sound like Bobr1.. <_< :blink: :huh: J/K :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 07:02 PM) [snapback]256043[/snapback]</div>

Squid, you can make fun of my past demands that you apologize to me all you want.

It doesn't change the fact that you falsely accused me of discriminating against Christians/religious people.

I have never done so, and this isn't just a matter of personal pride, but it affects me professionally.

At several points in my career, and likely again in the near future, I have had the responsibility of making hiring and firing decisions. To publicly accuse me of discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation puts at risk any human resources decisions I may make or may have made in the past.

I have posted in this forum always with my real first name, occasionally with my last name, and occasionally have linked to various web sites I have created.

You have accused me, a real person, of actions which are unethical, immoral, and in the case of my business, illegal.

I must therefore correct the record vigorously, and my demand for an apology still stands, no matter how much of a chuckle it gives you.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 07:02 PM) [snapback]256043[/snapback]</div>

I think there is a huge difference between "dating" someone and being tolerant or kind of a different lifestyle. I have many gay friends but I don't want to date or live that lifestyle myself. I admire quite a few of our developmentally disabled consumers that work with us in my job at The Arc of San Diego, they have a lot more balls then some.

Close mindedness is what it is.

 

This is just trading personal attacks at this point, and I formally complain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 11:38 PM) [snapback]256096[/snapback]</div>

Just because you offer differences of opinion into a good thread doesnt mean one doesnt support a cause...
you offer what is out there of opinions.. Its not my fault that someone rolls me into a 2nd or 3rd opinion and veiws me a bigot due to a post that they read and take offence to.. I would be the messenger relaying an opposing idea.

Becides it makes for good conversation :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]256071[/snapback]</div>

Ahh, thanks for saying that. Without your declaration that it was "BS", I would not have known what to think about it. Your absolute authority on the matter is clear. Facts need not be consulted.

Ahh, blame the victim. You falsely accuse me of something, and it is my fault you did this to me because I used my real name. Got it.

That's right, all the burdens fall on me, the one who you accused. All my fault that you lied about me.

All you did was post excerpts of my debate with Windstrings, someone who I have never met, don't know who he really is, have no power over, and have never even had the slightest hint of an opportunity to discriminate against. And you used that debate as "evidence" that I discriminated against Christians/religious people. Discrimination is a serious charge, and serious charges require evidence, not your childish opinions.

As I already alerted you in the other discussion: Debate does not equal discrimination. Windstrings suffered no adverse consequences as a result of our debate.

You, however, have called my ethical and professional reputation into question without proof of any kind. That is real.

When someone tells lies about me in a public forum, the burden falls on the liar to back up his statements. That's you.

Yes, demanding an apology from a liar is now a "tactic". You love to dismiss the issue, blame the victim, anything to get you off the hook. But you are still a liar.

- Bob R.