I can see your point Esprix.But what about a** single **clearly heterosexual male wanting to adopt a 3 year old girl. Is it possible for the state to make a proper decision as to the ultimate intent?
Are you implying all single heterosexual males are child molesters? 
It is the state’s job to make a proper decision as to the ultimate intent - that’s why prospective applicants go through rigorous screening processes. No one is saying hand the kid over to the first person that walks in off the street, but if a single person, male or female, gay or straight, or a couple, mixed or same-sex, want to adopt, there are more than just a few agencies who will consider them as potential candidates for what would be best for a child.
Esprix
Separate but equal isn’t? So what? A gay marriage is unequal (important disclaimer: unequal does not mean inferior/superior) to a hetero marriage whatever the government does. Having separate categories for the two isn’t creating inequality, but simply recognizing preexisting inequality. I don’t see anything wrong with that. For instance, many state statutes say that if a woman becomes pregnant, her spouse is the prima facie father. Should this law hold for gay marriages? If a lesbian is divorcing her wife, should she really have to prove that the children aren’t hers?
Marriage is not an “in the bedroom” sort of issue.
How can there be gay christians? Isn’t that only possible if a person believes what they want to believe of the Bible?
If that’s the case, wouldn’t that make someone not christian? :rolleyes:
I don’t know whether it requires pointing out that this topic has been done before numerous times here. And I’d make the observation that there are a lot of things beyond marriage and adoption that influence relations between gays and Christians (including in the same head, where someone is both). Typically the Advocate and related journalism will run the latest item of anti-gay rhetoric or resolution from a Christian body, with some casual mention of those who take the opposing, pro-gay view within that denomination, and get nasty letters on the subject of “why those hypocritical bigots can’t just get off our case.” And almost anywhere set apart as specifically Christian, with very few exceptions, there is ignorance of what gays are really like, what they go through, and what their intentions are. It’s been an important part of my mission in life to try to bridge that gap.
As for the OP, my initial comment was very succinctly said up early on: “Separate but equal isn’t.”
In a nation where two lovestruck 17-year-olds can tie the knot because they have the hots for each other (never mind that both think they can “change” the other’s bad habits) and the typical Hollywood marriage lasts about eight months, the idea of “the sanctity of marriage” as a public institution (as opposed to religious ceremony) needs to be rethought. I’d have no problem with any law allowing any two people to marry regardless of what characteristics they may have.
At the same time, there’s something to be said for the “civil union” approach too. There are couples who may want to formalize their living arrangements but are not prepared to make a lifelong commitment and too honest to hypocritically pledge one. That is not restricted on the basis of sexual orientation or anything else.
Finally, I’ve seen excellent single parents, and horrible-parent couples. But in general, I believe that studies have documented a correlation between having a caring role model of each sex and a child’s healthy social maturation. This to me suggests nothing except the desirability of a person not in a heterosexual marriage (along with the partner if in a committed gay relationship) identifying a person or people of the opposite sex from him/herself who is willing to stand in a quasiparental or avuncular role for his or her child/ren.
If some of these states that seem loath to allow gay adoptions were to suggest that the law might have a better chance of passage if it included a clause that indicated that such an adoption (single parent or same-sex couple) will optimally have a commitment from a person willing to serve as opposite-sex role model, would that be offensive to gay people? To singles? To the public at large?
Yeah, like most Christians don’t pick and choose.
Tell you what, JD - you stop wearing mixed fabrics, and I’ll betcha a gay Christian somewhere will leave the faith.
Talk about :rolleyes:…
Esprix
Christian, n., 1. a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.
Find where in the Bible Jesus condemned homosexuality, and then we’ll talk. Biblical literalism is not the only form of Christianity. It’s possible for a Christian to think that Paul was a pompous, sexist homophobe. (Aside: Martin Luther thought Revelation was a bunch of nonsensical rubbish. Was he a Christian?) Now, I don’t want to go stereotyping all gay Christians. They have a wide variety of beliefs just as Christians in general do. However, a person can be gay and follow the teachings of Jesus with no contradiction whatsoever. To my knowledge, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. I went to a fundamentalist church, so if Jesus did, I’d know about it.
And “gayriage”? That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I’ve ever read. At least Vermont came up with a decent name: civil union.
I won’t reiterate everything the other posters have said, as they’ve done an excellent job pointing out the errors in your proposed plan for gay marriage and adoption.
FAITH? In what, as long as I believe it’s true, it’s ok? That’s not the way it works! Somehow I think what fabrics I wear differs greatly from the LAWS of GOD!
’Sprix, hon, could you point JerseyDiamond to that essay about the Church and homosexuality that you’ve mentioned before? I would, but I forgot to bookmark it, and I can’t find the post where you quoted it last. Thanks much.
Oh, Damn, I see you’ve already commented. Sigh.
Frankly, I’m for abolishing marriage all together, and in its stead setting up a civil contract between people - yes, any people - one that has a set duration (or “review period,” for those who want to make a lifetime commitment) to ensure that all parties involved still want to be involved. With, of course, the caveat that any children produced of such a union are to be cared for by all parties involved until they reach majority (and after, if necessary).
But that’s just me, I’m sure. Oh, wait. Looks like Poly’s in at least partial agreement with me.
So, Esprix, we meet again…
Do you not think it just a bit hypocritical to bash Christians because of your belief that we all just pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to believe and which to ignore…
While at the same time saying that there’s no reason why a gay person can’t selectively ignore the admonitions against homosexuality, and claim to be a Christian anyway, since they don’t believe that part?
Tell you what, Esprix, you come up with a consistent view on the bible and Christianity, and I’ll betcha a creationist somewhere will do the same.
Indeed.
The Bible quite clearly states that you cannot wear fabrics of mixed weaves. It equally clearly says homosexual sex is an abomination. You pick and choose, gay Christians pick and choose. Personally, I’d go with what dogsbody so aptly said. (And the article you’re referring to is Walter Wink’s "Homosexuality and the Bible.)
Esprix
Oh, don’t get me wrong - I think gay Christians are just as misled as any other Christian. But I won’t let anyone else slam them for their beliefs as gay Christians simply because they pick and choose like every other Christian I know of.
Well, since I’m being consistent, I hope you’re right. 
Esprix
Thanks, Esprix, and I’m blushing. (I bookmarked it this time, too ;)).
Now.
If the primary tenet of Christianity is “Love,” as many of the Christians on this board have suggested in the past, how do you - Joe_Cool and JerseyDiamond - reconcile that with an (apparent) belief that homosexuals are somehow undeserving of love? Any love - regardless of whether it’s with a partner, or just the support of people whom they have every right to expect will be supportive in times of emotional need? (Like, say, their minister in times of bereavement?)
But, I’ll bet I’m barking up a storm for no purpose. Y’all probably won’t even read the fine essay linked to above. :rolleyes:
Marriage is a divisive institution at this time in humanity’s history, and needs to be changed or abolished. And I think I’ve said all I need to say about gay couples being allowed to adopt. And andygirl has said a lot of other things I’d like to say about so-called “Christian” treatment of homosexuals.
Gee, I don’t recall saying ANYTHING about homosexuals or anyone else for that matter not being loved, or not deserving love! I’m sorry, is there another JerseyDiamond? As a matter of fact, I didn’t see Joe_cool say anything like that either!
Part of the issue is the definition. Many Christians, grienspace included, view marriage as being a religious ceremony and bond (and some Xian sects consider it a holy sacrament).
But it’s also a legal contract between two people and the state. Lots of non Christians get married, after all. Now we could argue that it has or has not always been that way (and we have), but the fact remains that there is no non-religious reason for the secular aspects of marriage to be withheld from same-sex couples.
But you did say they cannot be Christian, right? Or did I misinterpret you?
Yes, andros that’s what he implied.
Sorry, JerseyDiamond I must have been reading into your posts. You and Joe_Cool both.
There’s just something in me that gets all riled up when I see posts intimating that “them thar homersexuals are gwan ter Hell fer bein’ the way they are, cauze y’know they act agin God’s Laws. It’s jest wrong.” (Note: Sarcasm added to this post).
I’m afraid my brain automatically supplies “Well, then, let us punish them in the here and now, as well as the hereafter.”
You can say your Christian, sure!
How can you follow Christ and not follow the rules?
I guess I’m just a little confused, how can you be a republican but vote democrat?
Maybe you can explain to me how it work…
If that’ sindeed what he meant, and Christ is Love, then it seems to me that he is indeed saying that homosexuals are not worthy of Christ’s love.
:shrug: I’ve been wrong before. But if it walks like a duck . . .
well, I guess you can be wrong a second time too, but anyway you look at it GOD loves you