***QUOTE***
Kaffinator said:
OK, I looked at these.
If this is the best you can do it seems to me your case isn't very strong. And this is coming from someone (myself) who is Christian in the five-point-sola sense, including sola scriptura, including the necessary conclusion that homosexual behavior is sinful. The problem is, so is lots of other human behavior but I do not see Christians campaigning to restrict adoption rights from those who are divorced and remarried, or who have seriously sinful habits of greed and consumption, etc.
In the end it may be true that allowing homosexual couples to adopt is dangerous in the long run. But if you are going to argue that case you are going to have to do a better job than the articles above.
And as a disciple of Christ you owe it to Him to show love for sinners. You can start by not imagining all homosexuals to be spouse-smacking pedophilic sexaholics. Do you even know anyone who identifies as homosexual?
***END-QUOTE***
I reserve a fathomless well of contempt for “Christians” like the Kaffinator. They are moonlighting for the enemy.
i) We don’t need peer-reviewed “studies” that directly correlate homosexual child abuse with homosexual adoption.
We only need a reasonable body of evidence that homosexuals seduce underage youth at a disproportionate rate. That is quite sufficient to disqualify them from adopting children.
And even if they didn’t seduce the young at a disproportionate rate, there is so much else connected with the homosexual lifestyle which is detrimental to childrearing.
ii) Where adoption or foster care is concerned, the burden of proof is on the prospective guardians. The child should not be put in the position of assuming the risk in case we’re wrong.
iii) There are degrees of sin and social dysfunctionality. Somebody who is “greedy” and somebody who is addicted to kiddy porn or crack cocaine are hardly on a par when it comes to the best interests of the child.
iv) As a disciple of Christ I owe it to “the least of these” to make their welfare a priority. Some sinners are more dangerous than others. I used to do jail ministry. This doesn’t mean I’d mix every sort of sinner into the general prison population.
Wow, I get Steve's “fathomless well of contempt” after only two posts? That’s got to be a new record for me, usually it takes at least four :-) If you want to hate me, that's your business, but for your own good, you might want to consider your emotional position carefully in light of 1 John 3:15.
ReplyDeleteSteve > "We only need a reasonable body of evidence that homosexuals seduce underage youth at a disproportionate rate. That is quite sufficient to disqualify them from adopting children."
So basically you are saying that whenever a certain demographic group exhibits behavior that is not conducive to child-rearing, we should suspend all adoptions into that group.
OK, so what about black people? According to the FBI, a black person is about three times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime than a white. So by your logic we should prevent children from going into black households as well, yes?
Andrew – I will answer your question. None of those describe a someone who should be allowed to adopt a child. (In fact we know that the righteous punishment of God for such things is far greater than the suspension of adoption privileges. It is death.)
But what about, you Andrew? Are you free from this judgment? Look ahead a few verses to Romans 2:1-3.
"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for that in which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same [yourself], that you will escape the judgment of God?"
Andrew. I answered your question. Now answer mine. Are you completely free of all of the behaviors listed in Romans 1? That you have no evil, greed, malice, deceit, or strife in you? None at all?
If you answer affirmatively I direct you to 1 John 1:8. If you answer negatively (as I would) then you might see that we all stand under the same conviction. None of us are worthy to receive any of God's gifts of grace, and that would include children. Yet, impossibly, God chooses to bless us with children anyway. Amazing isn't it.
Kaffinator,
ReplyDeleteYour capacity for moral obtuseness is exceptional.
Everyone was also a sinner under the Mosaic law, but not all sins were crimes, and not all crimes were treated equally.
This is a question of the child’s welfare. Even if you think I’m a hypocrite, what does that have to do with the wellbeing of the child?
You also quote one sentence of mine while conveniently ignoring all of the many very serious problems associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
This is not about God’s grace or the universality of sin. This is about acting in the best interests of a child—a child who already has one strike against him.
Andrew, I'm sad to see you didn't bother to answer my question. In fact nothing you said indicates that you even read my post.
ReplyDeleteSo let me put it more plainly. Any disobedience to God is an offense deserving death. You and I stand under the same judgment as the most vile pervert imaginable. I pray that you will understand this so that you can know the depth of Christ's forgivness.
You want homosexuals put to death? Perhaps you will be the one to pick up the first stone. As you judge, Andrew, you will also be judged.
And please don't insult two millenia of Christian political thought by suggesting we should install the whole of Leviticus as our civil code. No serious Christian thinker to my knowledge has ever suggested we should do this.
Steve, if you are truly an enemy of moral obtuseness, you will answer the single question I asked of you in my first comment. Because I want to believe the best of you, I will give you another chance at it:
ReplyDeleteShouldn't we suspend adoption privileges for blacks because, according to statistics, they are predisposed to violent crime? After all we don't want to put children into homes where violent crime is more frequent, do we?
Andrew, in light of your comment, please explain why Jesus did not allow the prostitute to be put to death.
ReplyDeleteHello Andrew,
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat ridiculous to think that ALL of the Pharisees were guilty of adultery, so I guess the thrust of your answer is that the Pharisees were setting up an "illegitimate courtroom". If that was so then Jesus would have rebuked them specifically for taking the law into their own hands. He would then have directed them to a proper venue where the prostitute could be tried and convicted and executed properly.
But that's not what He did, is it?
I am certainly not saying nobody should be punished for any crime. Nor did Jesus. But he was rebuking those who obstinately refuse to see their own moral failings as they zealously pronounce moral judgment upon others.
Looks like Steve has moved on without explaining why the analogy to adoption by blacks is without merit. Too bad for us all.
ReplyDelete