Please read back to my mentioned example of my neighbors. There is no way they/she should have had kids. I have watched them for many years, and have no quams about saying that her upbringing of those kids (their father left, moved back in with his mother, and has lived ever since, and she has since re-married twice, as well-not to mention the drug and alcohol abuse by all parents/step parents) is directly responsible for their current criminal condition and incontinent thought processes. They act in stupidity, because that is how they were raised. So, that is a natural process of thought for them. I’m not saying that they are stupid (although their mother routinely ignored their truancy, until they both dropped out of school), but, they certainly don’t act as anything short of abused animals. And, the daughter may one day have a child, either in, or out of, wedlock. If she doesn’t face her own upbringing, and do something to put her past behind her, and decide again how she was raised, another child will endure the same upbringing.

I don’t disagree with your statement. There are some people who should never have had children, and there are people (and if man’s law includes homosexual unions as legal, then, this includes them) single people and couples who desperately want children, and understand the commitment of raising a loved, healthy, happy, productive child.

We don’t have to agree with the lifestyle, though. And I do think that there is some adverse effect for the child, such as ridicule, being subject to the rejection that their homosexual parents may face in public, hate crime (as an innocent bystander), etc.

That has to have some effect, I just don’t think we’re at a point where we are able to pinpoint the negatives, being that this “trend” is so new.

Our lifestyle in America, isn’t so far from the Sodom(s), Gomorrah(s), or Babylon(s) of world history.

I’m not saying homosexuality is selfish, but, as a whole, they aren’t reputed as a huge “giving” community, either.

It just depends on the people and the parenting. if man’s law accepts it, then we have to accept it.

The ten commandments still stand, so, why would God’s view on homosexuality change?

The New Testament Law pertains to Sin, (formerly required sacrifice), and atonement. It doesn’t erase God’s view of sin, and change sinful behavior into acceptible behavior (although we all sin and fall short). Any sin aside from blasphemy is forgiveable, and forgiven by God. That includes homosexual behavior.

If man’s law accepts it, then we have to accept it. Most churches, outside of the Unitarian Church, frown upon that lifestyle, though.

You’re a smart man, Pat, and I respect you, but I think that you’re arguing out of your knowledge base. But, I encourage you to keep reading your bible. That’s the best reading any of us can do.

You speak as if the God of the Old Testament is a different God than in the New Testament. They are one and the same and homosexuality is condemned in both Testaments as a great sin against a Holy God.

The New Testament Law speaks about the physical act of sacrifice, which at times could be nearly insurmountable, in pursuit of forgiveness and salvation were foregone when Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice, and exchanged his life for our salvation. That, by no means, circumvents the ten commandments, or invalidates God’s law.

The meaning of God creation of humans is quite clear, and needs little elaboration. God created two humans of different sexes so that they could reproduce. He ordered them to have children and start to populate the world with more humans. There is obviously a limit to the number of children that Eve could give birth to. One might safely assume that God’s instruction to Adam and Eve were also binding to their children, grandchildren, even down to the present generation.

The only family/marriage structure that allows procreation by the spouses is made up of one or more men and one or more women. Two women cannot procreate together. Two men cannot have children. God’s intent therefore is for marriage to be limited to opposite sexes. God did not initially create one man and multiple women, or one women and multiple men, or multiple men and women. God’s intent therefore was to have opposite-sex pairs of humans marry and create families consisting of one man and one woman.

I disagree, but if the law says it is ok, then it is ok. Like many have said in this column, there are fit loving and wanting parents, both heterosexual and homosexual. Even in my disagreement with the lifestyle choice, I’d rather see a child given a loving supportive home by gay parents than an unfit home by heterosexual parents. There are a lot of unfit and uncaring parents out there who treat their kids as a burden and bother.

Moreover, the Bible’s statements of what you call “abhorrence to homosexuality” are found mostly in the Old Testament amid admonitions against eating shellfish, getting tatoos, wearing clothing made of more than one kind of fabric and other such terrible sins, which are prohibitions to which very few people pay any attention anymore.

I agree with Will, also. Not just anybody can adopt, not just anybody can legally drive, and not just anyone can legally own a gun, or property, but, any two fertile people (be they decent, or unfit for parenting) can have children.