Heloo brother and sisters! I know homosexuakity is wrong, yet what about a gay or lesbian couple adopting a child? I feel that's probaly wrong too, right?

My wife was asked this in her colledge and she answered that she believed it was wrong and was mocked because of it. People said things to her like: "There aren't that many "straight" couples out there who can or will adopt, so someone has to take the children." "I wish all christians were infertile." "Lets follow and invisible man we call God." She was hurt, yet that happens when we follow Christ. So I just comforted her when she got home.

Well could anyone give me reasons why it's wrong for such couples to adopt, besides of course (which is all the reason you need) because God says so?

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), November 23, 2004.

Its an abomination of the family for two gays to adopt a child.

Which one is the Dad or Mom?

-- - (David@excite.com), November 24, 2004.

People said things to her like: "There aren't that many "straight" couples out there who can or will adopt"

Whovere said this is so out of touch they must be from outer space. There is an enormous waiting list of married couples desperate to adopt, but there are not enough children available.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.

Steve's right. I know lots of couple who had to go to China or Russia to get their children because the domestic children are so hard to get (so I wonder how the homosexuals are getting easy access to them).

It ought also be noted that all things being equal, a child needs a man as father and woman as mother, not two mommies or two daddies. We're not talking acedotes or exceptions here...but statistics - there will always be the bell curve - lots of extreme cases on either end with the overwhelming majority of cases in the middle.

If you allow 100,000 gay couples to adopt 100,000 children, the majority of children will not get the psychological stability they need. Exceptions will abound - but if we are really concerned with the good of the children rather than the whim of the parents, we ought to seek what's best and what's best is a loving dad who's a guy and a loving mom who's a gal.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 24, 2004.

jason, i must agree with the previous statement by steve...

the adoption waiting list is HUGE. it so happens that the process is so intricate and takes so long that it causes problems in the system. what we need to do is clear more federal resources for background checks of adopting parents so that the waiting time is reduced... then alot of the children needing adoption can be safely dispursed to loving COMPLETE families.

Second, as david at excite said... which one is the mommy? it is UNHEALTHY mentally for a child to be raised in the developemental stages without any contact to a parent of BOTH sexes. FURTHER, children are cruel. Imagine what it would be like when talking about families in class and little johny raises his hand wondering why he has two dads and no mommy... how do you think the children will treat little johny? The pull to adopt by homosexual couples isnt about loving a child, its about a selfish need to demand something in order to justify the self, regardless of the potential damage to a child.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 24, 2004.

Another element to be considered is the increased risk of sexual abuse. Homosexuals comprise 1% of the general population but 30 to 35% of the population of people who sexually abuse children. That is, a child placed with a homosexual "couple" is 30 to 35 times more likely to be sexually abused than a child placed with a married couple. To knowingly place a child at that risk would be unconscionable.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.

I don't know, I'm not prepared to judge parents solely on their sexual orientation. It should be based on their individual merit as parents. There are tons of straight couples out there who don't deserve kids. I've known kids who've been abused or neglected by their parents. Are an abusive pair or straight parents somehow better than a perfectly loving pair or homosexual parents? I just don't know. I lifeguard over the summer, and every summer there's a few kids that almost drown (we save them, we haven't had a death out our pool in over ten years) because they decided to go into the deep end when they can barely swim, and their parents aren't paying a lick of attention. I've seen kids get pulled out of the water while their parents are chatting away right there, and they don't even realize something is wrong until the kid is back up on the pool deck. Straight parents can be just as negligent or abusive as anybody else. I'm sure gay parents as a group are pretty much like straight parents; a few suck, but most are pretty decent.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 25, 2004.

I'm sure gay parents as a group are pretty much like straight parents; a few suck, but most are pretty decent.

***Anti-bush, this is not true. For the most part a very large percentage are drug or alcohol abusers. My best friend from childhood is a lesbian and I guarentee you all her friends are abusers. They have their issues believe me, if they didn't they wouldn't be gay. Comparing bad straight parents to gay parents is just about right though...they are all messed up and would pretty much suck as a parent.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno@hotmail.com), November 25, 2004.

I'm sure gay parents as a group are pretty much like straight parents; a few suck, but most are pretty decent.

ALL homosexuals are objectively disordered.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 25, 2004.

"She was hurt, yet that happens when we follow Christ."

Exactly. He says, learn to like it, look up for your salvation is at hand, they did it to Me so they'll do it to you, rejoice, love these morons anyways, and keep moving the ball into the enemy's one yardline. A... paraphrase, of course.

"So I just comforted her when she got home."

Job done.

"Well could anyone give me reasons why it's wrong for such couples to adopt, besides of course (which is all the reason you need) because God says so?"

Sure. Because they'll teach them damnable stuff and put their souls in extreme jeopardy. That's because they won't teach them the Catholic Faith. Because the loss of the Faith is worse than even any moral crime, from abortion to homosexuality itself to fornication to adultery to whatever, because the loss the Faith is the prime cause and the doorway to all these things.

The worse thing a person can do to any child, without exception, is to fail to pass on to them the Catholic Faith. Believe it or not.

And of course, there's the normal stuff in the natural realm, the obvious... they won't have either a mommy or a daddy. Either of which, if it could have been helped, is damnable enough in its own right. If I were able to, I would adopt every last one of them.

But legally and politically, there's no hope really. Whip out your Rosary and honor Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It's the only and last ditch resolution to problems such as this. As it stands in the practical reality, we're toast.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 25, 2004.

"For the most part a very large percentage are drug or alcohol abusers."

What? I would realy like to see some research that proves that.

"ALL homosexuals are objectively disordered"

Your church views them as sinners. That doesn't mean they can't lead perfectly normal, healthy lives, or be good, decent parents. You just can't an entire group of people like that.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 26, 2004.

Your church views them as sinners. That doesn't mean they can't lead perfectly normal, healthy lives, or be good, decent parents. You just can't an entire group of people like that.

anti-bush,

Your morally relative 'name' goes well with your morally relative arguments. If not for bush you would ne not... Very 'stable' your existence, very stable your 'truths', and so very stable your arguments...

Shall we first debate the meanings of 'stable, 'decent' etcetera upon the quicksand of 'truth' upon which your are firmly footed...

-no, I don't think so....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 26, 2004.

Unfortinatley Anti-Bush, Homosexulity is a disorder, though now legitimated, most sffer form various mental disturnabces, that in and of itsswlf preclude health. Likewise, there physical health is at a known risk.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.

Anti...

" I don't know I'm no prepared to judge parents on sexual ......"

Does this prents can be two males? What is a parent then? Two HOMOSEXUALS? Who is the Man of the family?

"...that doesn't mean they can't lead perfectly normal, healthy..."

Normal isn't man laying with man son!

Pray to end abortion.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 27, 2004.

Jason, in a loving/non confrontational way I will try to say that if your wife truly believed in her heart that her opinions were grounded firmly in Loving Christian Scripture than nothing anyone else said, or thought should have shook her belief in her convictions.

As a Christian, sure I falter. I have meat on Friday during Lent (on accident), or I work on Sunday (God knows I have to pay the rent). Or I might even let off a string of obscenities when I had kidney stones & they weren't able to get me in for surgery for a whole darn week.

Did anyone realize there's a war in Iraq right now? That Domestic Violence towards women and children is on the rise? That there are homeless people who don't have adequate medication, food and shelter right here in our own towns? (which "I" find more worrisome, and worthy of prayers, and sending petitions around to help rectify.)

I'm NOT going to have a snit or get self righteous if two men or two women want to adopt a child, and give it a loving home. I don't care if a traditional Muslim man with 4 wives, or a single divorced wo/man wants to adopt a wondeful child.

I'm NOT God. I CANNOT judge who can give a good home. Or who is capable of love. My God is Loving and Compassionate. Do I want to run out and be with someone of the same sex? No. Do I have any right to impose MY will on someone else that GOD has given FREE WILL too, even if I don't agree with them? NO!!!

Not every lesbian or gay couple is eager to have a family. Just like NOT every Straight Couple wants to have one. Just because someone has to adopt children and even if they can pass all the requirements to be able to adopt doesn't mean they're going to raise children who will be religious, compassionate, intelligent, loving and happy.

How many 'straight' families can you name, just off the top of your head that had parent(s) that neglected, abused or mistreated their children? Or where the parents were drug addicts, drunks, never home, physically violent, or neglected their children?

I get mad when someone molests or rapes a minor. But I don't see myself surrounded by 'scary' homosexuals. I see predators. Who's sexual orientation is for minors. Who come in all sizes, shapes, creeds, genders and sexual orientations Period.

Molestation/Rape still carries a horrible stigma in this society. MANY go unreported! If you honestly go by the statistics (which you can get from the reputable sources: online, library, police stations & hospitals (Such as a local Sex Offenders List) the crimes are (mostly) committed by straight men.

Instead of worrying if a Church Going Roman Catholic Gay couple is going to adopt a little girl from China and make sure she gets all her sacraments, a roof over her head, clothing, food and shelter, and a college education, so that she can get married to a nice man (most gay/lesbian parents end up raising STRAIGHT children who tolerate and accept people on the basis of their merit, not their race, gender, creed or sexual orientation) and have her own children eventually...

Why not be more concerned and pray that they get adopted into loving families and NEVER have to grow up as amoral, unloved miserable orphans who have no choices, never get to hear Gods word and have to work in some 3rd World sweat shop for less than minimum wages or worse yet die from AIDs or some other horrible STD because they have to become a child/teen/adult prostitutes to support themselve for even a mediocre existance?

I'm liberal, and try to understand and accept everyone where they are, so though I can comprehend 'hating the sin,' I CANNOT tolerate people playing God casting judgment on another human being and hating the sinner. Hate is not a family value, and not one I would pass on to the rest of my children, collegues, family, friends or spouse.

And for the record, though you need a man and a woman to create a child, you do NOT require a man and a woman to raise a child. For all the people you say you must, then you must be entirely unaware that widow/ers and divorced/single parents raise perfectly wonderful children daily quite well without the compassion, understanding or neccesity of your approval.

Yes, I believe children/teens/adults need to have good role models of the opposite & same sex, but they have to be part of single parents support system. And usually end up being a childs teacher, or perhaps an elder in the community, or a grandparent, aunt, uncle or perhaps one of thier parents trusted aquaintences. And would hopefully be any one of a number of Saints & Apostles, not to leave out Jesus Christ & Mary themselves.

FYI: These people are currently single parents: Angelina Jolie the Current Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva, Switzerland after her visits to Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Pakistan, Jackie Kennedy Onassis the former 1st Lady, Cleopatra the last queen of Egypt. These people were raised by single parents during part or all of their childhood: General Robert E. Lee, Sir Isaac Newton the physicist/mathematician, Alan Greenspan the Economist & Ed Bradley the CBS news correspondent.

Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream -- a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin, {his religion, gender, or sexual orientation}, determines the content of his character; a dream of a nation where all our gifts and resources are held not for ourselves alone, but as instruments of service for the rest of humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality. ~Martin Luther King, Jr. {Not specifically said, but implied by his inclusion of "ANY Other Distinctions}

-- Dorian Apollo (DorianApollo2@yahoo.com), November 28, 2004.

Dorian,

Unfortunately, your homosexual dream is not Catholic...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 28, 2004.

What part of what Dorian said was "homosexual"? The part where she DARED to suggest that conservatives have their priorities screwed up? Or the part where she dared to equate discrimination against homosexuals with discrimination against blacks? Or the part where she dared to say that perhaps the millions of people who go to bed hungry in this country should be dealt with before a couple of homosexuals in Massetchussets who want to go down to the courthouse and get hitched?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.

"..F.Y.I.! these people are currentley single parents: Angelina Jolie the Current Goodwill Ambassader for the United Nations High Commission for refuges in ...."

Isn't she the BI-SEXUAL freak that stuck het tongue down her brothers throat on National tv ?

Sure now we believe she is a great Mom. How do we know she won't stick her tongue down her babies throat? I mean she did this to her own blood brother. Wake up Dorian!

-- - (David@excite.com), November 28, 2004.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals abuse children. IMHO, that's not an issue, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, I have no problem with believing that MORE crimes against children are perpetrated by heterosexuals. So what.

The issue is that people of the same sex living together as "married people" is sinful. People of the same sex indulging in sexual activity together is sinful. To adopt a child and bring the child into BELIEVING that an active homosexual relationship is normal and moral is against the teaching of the Church.

It is NOT JUST HOMOSEXUALS..People of the SAME sex who have not entered into marriage and who are living together as "married people" are indulging in sinful behavior. For THEM to adopt a child and to teach that child that THEIR relationship is normal and moral is also against the teachings of the Church.

People who equate the Churches' stance with racial bigotry would be well-advised to look at both of these examples.

Marriage isn't just a wedding with the result being a piece of paper which the couple can frame and put up over the mantle. HOLY MATRIMONY is a SACRAMENT, a sacred covenant between a man, a woman and Almighty God. The adopting of precious children, whether by married people or a single person, entails an awesome responsibility..to receive those children as if they were, indeed, your natural children. This includes teaching them morality.

Do ALL natural children have moral parents? nope. Yet one of the truly great things about the adoption process is that MOST of the time, these children have adults working in their behalf who are able to select parents FOR THEM who have the highest potential for being good parents. Years ago "morality" used to be an important factor in the process. As in everything else in our society, it matters less and less as we "progress."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.

Dorian, (and anti-Bush) I too share your dream, but it has absolutely zilch to do with the question under discussion. I too am proud to call myself a liberal, and try to understand and accept everyone where they are, so though I can comprehend 'hating the sin,' I CANNOT tolerate people playing God casting judgment on another human being and hating the sinner. But your loopy “logic” is what gives liberals a bad name.

“'straight' families… that had parent(s) that neglected, abused or mistreated their children? Or where the parents were drug addicts, drunks, never home, physically violent, or neglected their children” would not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being allowed to adopt a child. But apparently with homosexuals, it’s a case of “if they want it, we must give it to them, otherwise it’s unfair discrimination”! Wake up Dorian. No one has a RIGHT to adopt a child like they have the right to buy an ice-cream if they want one. Your right to swing your fists around ends where my chin begins, and anyone’s right not to be discriminated against ends where it conflicts with the basic rights of others, especially the weakest, youngest and most vulnerable members of society.

“I don't see myself surrounded by 'scary' homosexuals.” That’s easy for you to say. Put yourself in the shoes of a small child at the mercy of a so-called “homosexual couple”. The child doesn’t know his rights. The only thing he knows of right and wrong is what the homosexuals tell him.

“I see predators. Who's sexual orientation is for minors. Who come in all sizes, shapes, creeds, genders and sexual orientations Period.“ No-one has disputed this. But as I said, the risk to an adopted child is far greater in the case of homosexual adopters. It’s unacceptable, stupid and pointless to allow homosexuals to adopt when there is a huge waiting list of stable loving married couples desperate to have a child, who have been put under the microscope to the nth degree to make sure as far as humanly possible that they will be the absolute cream of the crop as adoptive parents.

“a Church Going Roman Catholic Gay couple” is oxymoronic. If a so-called “couple” of practising homosexuals regularly attend a Catholic church they are hypocrites of the worst order.

“These people are currently single parents: Angelina Jolie, Jackie Kennedy Onassis the former 1st Lady, Cleopatra the last queen of Egypt.” Apart from the fact that two of the 3 are dead so they can hardly be “currently” single parents, all 3 had totally #&%#ed-up personalities and relationships with their families . And there’s no such thing as a “single parent”. You mean "solo parent". Anyone who’s a parent must have been “coupled” at some stage, even if it was only for one night.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.

sigh..obviously, I meant to say in the second example, "people of the OPPOSITE sex".. it's so exasperating to think one way, type it, and have your brain "re-write" it without your knowledge.. My apologies.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.

anti-bush, "Instead of worrying if a Church Going Roman Catholic Gay couple...

Your indignation is transparently self serving -your ego holds you hostage...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 28, 2004.

That Domestic Violence towards women and children is on the rise?

Lesley,

Where is the data?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 28, 2004.

I give only one reason why two homosexuals adopting is wrong, because the Lord forbids it! If He came down here himself and spoke it would you argue against it? The Roman Catholic Church is God's Church and teaches his word, and it is preserved without error or each and every person becoming their own pope and forming their own belief systems. There is ONE faith, ONE Baptism, and ONE Church that teaches the FULLNESS of the Gospel...The Catholic Church! Understanding Christianity and Church history will show you this, just as it showed John Newman.

We are to welcome and embrace homosexuals with LOVE, because yes, they are sinners and need our prayers. And the Catholic Church will NEVER change their veiws on these issues, EVER!

Praise the Lord and God bless all you people.

-- mr.faith (asdf@qwer.com), November 28, 2004.

"I give only one reason why two homosexuals adopting is wrong, because the Lord forbids it! If He came down here himself and spoke it would you argue against it?"

Wow, that's a little presumptuous, don't you think? Maybe you think you can speak for God, but I don't, so I'll have to rely on my own juedgement for most things in life.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.

Daniel, I didn't say that "domestic violence against women and children was on the rise"..Dorian did. (no problem BTW..)

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.

Anti-Bush, I think you’ve been around here long enough to know that it is an essential Catholic belief that Christ gave the Church a guarantee that it would never fall into doctrinal and moral error. IOW, if the Church proclaims categorically that homosexual acts are wrong, that means in effect that God says they are wrong. That’s all that Mr Faith was saying, albeit in a rather triumphalist style. That doesn't mean that we can't usually rely on our own judgment to work out for ourselves that certain acts are wrong, and why they are wrong. And most Catholics do this. But when the Church confirms they are wrong we KNOW it is true.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.

Liberal yes, Informed definitely.

Which I suggest all you people who keep 'gay' bashing should be as well. And yes, I'd be this perturbed over Christian, Elderly or any other sorts of bashing.

If you're such wonderful Christians (Catholics in particular) then you should be aware of the 1997 Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers called "Always Our Children"

<< God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God's love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it. St. Paul's words offer great hope:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).>>>

(to read the entire article you can go here: http://www.dignityusa.org/always.html)

A Gay/Lesbian Couple adopting a child and Gay/Lesbian Marriage are two different issues. The question was never should Gay/Lesbians be allowed to wed? Stay on topic here. It was should an established couple be allowed to adopt a child? And my reply is yes. If they pass all the qualifications of a normal adoption process. Yes, they definitely should be allowed.

I know of three 'Straight" couples that have adopted children that If "I" was a case worker would have denied their applications because I personally found them morally reprehensible in the eyes of the church. But I'm not God, so thank God I'm NOT an adoption case worker and never have to deal with this issues, and thank God that I was NEVER on their reference lists.

One 'supposedly' upstanding church going straight couple were swingers. Yes, the sort that got married and have adulterous rendezvous with other couples at the same time. (I was so grossed out, and disgusted, that I politely refused to go to any more social gatherings with them)

Another couple were weekend drug users. (again, I'm liberal, but not 'that' liberal. another couple I wouldn't associate with).

Then most recently there's this 'couple' that adopted a child from China and though they're not 'morally' questionable, it's more of a question of ethics.

They adopted this child believing that because she was from China she was going to be automatically smarter, and quiet. And that they were going to pass on parts of her Chinese culture to her by ordering take out every so often from an American style Chinese restaurant (so that just smacks of imbecile factor..chop suey doth not make the child culturally savvy).

No where in the Bible does God specifically say "A child is to be denied a loving home because of it's parents sexual orientation."

STEVE: homosexuals aren't given carte blanche. It's not just you like wo/men here have a kid, take two they're small. You make it sound like an exclusive club, with cool perks. Gracious how ridiculous!

If anything I'd think they were put through more rigorous screening. Especially now, since the bill that would allow same sex partners was struck down and if one of the people passes away, their surviving partner can't get their social security, or can't get on their insurance, etc.. It would seem that it would make it harder for them to prove they could even support a child. But that's my opinion, which I don't care to find facts to substantiate.

DANIEL: I'm only here to give my opinion, which I know is silly as I'm a divorced female who never felt the need to procreate, but believe that children are a precious gift to humanity and are our future.

I on the other hand, am NOT here to do your leg work pet. You're on the Internet for goodness sakes, if you want to know where the data is to support my opinion that Domestic Violence Against Women & Children is on the Rise. Look it up on the Internet :)

You'll get loads of hits if you type in "Domestic Violence On The Rise" and for this year, if you put in "2004 Domestic Violence On The Rise".

MR. FAITH: If God came down here himself he'd be upset you were being so self righteous and he'd probably tell you to stop trying to interpret the bible all by yourself and leave it to him or the clergy person he's graced with the ability to understand even a smidgen of his scriptures. But he's loving and compassionate so he'd love and forgive you...and on a separate note, thank you for your blessing. I hope you have a blessed advent season as well as everyone else :)

LESLEY: Sorry that Daniel seemed to address all his questions over what I'd been saying to you. I dunno how Dorian looked like Lesley either, but eh fanx for being easy going :)

NAY SAYERS: I'm guessing that we agree for the most part, or should that the Church teaches right and wrong, but never says who is a sinner. Therefor it's not for us to pass judgment on our sisters and brothers and decide for them. ONLY God knows our hearts.

Which brings me to the fact that though Church teachings say that homosexual/lesbian acts are wrong, many homosexual people simply do NOT believe gay sex is wrong in their hearts.

So if we follow our Church's teachings on conscience, they are NOT sinning in their hearts before God. So they need NOT confess what is NOT a sin, and they MAY participate in the Sacraments of the Church.

For 'me' to say otherwise is WRONG.

I definitely don't want to see what a gay/lesbian couple is doing behind their closed doors, but alternately I don't want to see what straight people are doing in their bedrooms either.

But I really doubt whatever is happening behind a couples (or single parents..and yes, I meant SINGLE Parent..we're talking about adoption here, NOT how many people it takes to create a new life) closed doors is going to make 2 people any better or worse role models/parents/gaurdians for a child.

Jason posed his question for the forum, that I chose to give my answer too and like I said before, I believe that it's okay for a gay/lesbian couple to adopt (a) child/ren, because there are NO scriptural teachings that say they can't.

It's my opinion, and I don't need to justify it, though I chose to clarify my personal belief further for a few people. I don't believe I'm wrong. Or that anyone else is horrible if they don't agree with me. That's what's nice about being an American. We can agree to disagree. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

If you as parents cut corners, your children will too. If you lie, they will too. If you spend all your money on yourselves and tithe no portion of it for charities, colleges, churches, synagogues, and civic causes, your children won't either. And if parents snicker at racial and gender jokes, another generation will pass on the poison adults still have not had the courage to snuff out. ~Marian Wright Edelman Lawyer, Civil Rights Activist, Children's Advocate & Founder & President of the Children's Defense Fund

-- Dorian (DorianApollo2@yahoo.com), November 29, 2004.

Dorian, you seem like a person with good but misguided intentions. Homosexuality is a sin....A SIN! There is no other way to constrew it. The Bible...The inspired word of God, says it is a sin. I do not believe for one minute that God would contradict himself on this or any other matter. Especially with those concerning children. No, the Bible does not say, "Thou shall not let homosexuals adopt children." But it is quite clear on what homosexuality is. An abomination. And if God feels this strongly that it is a sin, why would he want the most innocent and vulnerable of his children to be raised in homes where this is taught as "normal" behavior. Matter of fact Matthew 18:6 and 7 says:

6.If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believes in me, it would be better for you that a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the deapth of the sea. 7. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling comes!

You said: So if we follow our Church's teachings on conscience, they are NOT sinning in their hearts before God. So they need NOT confess what is NOT a sin, and they MAY participate in the Sacraments of the Church --Dorian

There is no way a person who is faithful to the Catholic faith (or any other Christian faith for that matter)to NOT know that homosexuality is a sin. It is written several times in scripture. It was never meant by God for a man to lie with a man as he would his wife nor for a woman to lie with a woman as she would her husband. Sex was meant for the purpose of procreation. Two men and two women can not create a child between them. It ALWAYS takes a male and a female. The male and female bodies were designed by God to "fit" together perfectly. If homosexuals were meant in any way to raise children together God would have made it so that a man could become pregnant by another man and a woman could become pregnant by another woman. But that isn't how God designed our bodies, and God makes NO mistakes....EVER! He made us perfectly in his image the way we were meant to be!

You also said : I definitely don't want to see what a gay/lesbian couple is doing behind their closed doors, but alternately I don't want to see what straight people are doing in their bedrooms either. --Dorian

Me either! What my husband and I do together in the privacy of our bedroom is between us and God. He knows what goes on in EVERY bedroom ! And he knows who is sinning and using their bodies for lust. As I said earlier sex was created by God for the purpose of procreation, but He also made it a means by which a husband and a wife give themselves completely in perfect love and trust to eachother.... to become one flesh. That God created us to bring children into this world and to show perfect oneness and love to our spouse is one of the most beautiful things in the world and homosexuality attempts to turn it into an ugly and demeaning thing.

Now, do I hate homosexuals. No way! My mother worked with a man who was a practicing homosexual whose partner had contracted AIDS. He is a good man and I love him dearly. We talked several times about his homosexuality and having grown up in a Christian home, he knew that it was wrong. He desperately wanted to change it. He said it was so hard because he was so strongly attracted to men and not women. Bless his heart he took care of his partner until he died. Then he decided to completely turn from homosexuality. He prayed and prayed. He said he could never be with a woman in a sexual way. He just wans't attracted to them, so he chose celabacy over the sin of homosexuality. I loved this man now and I loved him when he was a practicing homosexual. He is warm, kind, loving, gentle, my children love him, my husband loves him, and God loves him.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 29, 2004.

Suzanne, what homosexuals mean when they say "love" is: "you must totally accept my every whim"... ie. if you don't approve of their sexual fetishes and fantasies, if you beg to differ on the biological and psychological health of sodomy, then they believe you can't possibly "love them".

Their inability to make distinctions between an argument against certain actions and arguments ad hominem is why lots of people conclude that homosexuals have a mental disorder prior to having physical compulsionary habits (otherwise known as "vices").

A person doesn't become a hater of alcoholics by insisting that his friend doesn't drive drunk! A person isn't a hater of young girls if he insists they don't starve themselves to death (anorexia). A woman isn't a hater of young boys if she insists they stay home and do their homework rather than run with the gang... But somehow homosexuals think we hate them personally by suggesting that anal, oral, and mutual masturbatory sex which involves the ingestion or exposure to various bodily fluids such as urine, blood and semen, is not hygenic, does lead to contagion, and thus, is "wrong".

They think that we think sin is sin for completely arbitrary reasons - as though God flipped a coin and ho hum decided to ban what is otherwise innocent fun.

But their OWN publications warn about the dire dangers of "unsafe" sex! Their OWN allies point to the higher incidence of substance abuse and gay-on-gay domestic violence. Their OWN proponents wax on and on about how many homosexuals get HIV so as to stop worrying about getting "it"! (Because all the caution, condoms, and worry is a real downer for those who want to be carefree and careless while cruising).

If we dare suggest that perhaps the lifestyle isn't safe and thus they'd be better off (and live longer) without it, they flip out.

But wait a second. Everyone ELSE in society is supposed to be cool and mature when "society" tells them to quit smoking (for their health) or quit eating fatty foods (for their health) or exercise more and diet (for their health).... but somehow when it comes to sex and not any other biological activity, this same mature acceptance of "society's" good will the rest of us are supposed to exhibit isn't taken that way by homosexuals but denounced in shrill terms as "hate".

This reaction is another phenomenological sign that all is not right in the minds of those who justify such activities.

Oh and a word on "Tolerance". There is no such thing as absolute tolerance - no one tolerates absolutely everything! So conversely, everyone is INTOLERANT of SOMETHING. The point is knowing which is what and why.

Catholics tolerate PEOPLE unconditionally (from conception to natural death) but NOT their thoughts or actions - those have to be PROVEN as good or at least neutral.

The same goes with "discrimination" - which means, literally "to judge, to classify". Every teacher who grades a term paper is "discriminating" between "A+" work and "F" work. Every buyer of wine or automobiles "discriminates" while choosing one over another. When you choose to go to McDonalds rather than Burger King, you "discriminate". Thus the word has to be further defined into good and bad discrimination - based on something objective rather than subjective.

The FAA discriminates against blind or deaf people who would be pilots - for good reason - the job requirements - not arbitrary ones. The Military discriminates against handicapped people when selecting Special Forces... for good reason - the dangerous demands of missions, not arbitrary ones.

But somehow when the issue is sex we are supposed to be non- discriminatory??? When the issue is statitical proclivity towards unhealthy behavior as proven by the CDF as well as people's own admissions... we are supposed to jettison any RATIONAL criteria for judging who matches our needs?

So we are picking parents for some orphan - and of a thousand couples eager to adopt we are supposed to just chuck out common sense, as well as science and let people adopt on a first come first serve basis out of fear of "discriminating"?

Would you not discriminate between candidates for the job of Surgeon General? If one candidate has zero education or experience with medicine and another has several doctorates and decades of experience in hospitals... isn't that a proper discrimination?

The typical homosexual couple is not monogamous - by their OWN admission - and thus will be far more likely to pick up various STDs than a typical monogamous heterosexual couple. Add to this the average lifespan of active homosexuals is 20 years shorter than the average lifespan of heterosexuals... and you have two reasons for NOT allowing children to be adopted by people who will be coming down with contagious diseases and may die sooner than later.

Add to this child-centered criteria of judgement the incontrovertible evidence of homosexual emotional and psychological problems (depression, projection, complexes, paranoia, etc.) and you are dealing not with apples and apples but apples and oranges.

Why allow - as a norm - any homosexual couple to adopt children when on the law of averages more will be incapable of taking proper care of that child than the average heterosexual couple?

The gay lobby matches the best couples from their bell curve against the worst couples of the heterosexual bell curve when in reality we ought to be comparing the majority with each other - and on that totally scientific, rational basis, rather than religion, we see the glaring reality that most homosexual couples are NOT monogamous and thus are either already infected or soon will become infected and will most certainly die young...compared with the average monogamous heterosexual couple whose life expenctancy is 80 years - and most don't have any diseases - of the mind or of the body.

Ah, but to do so would be to act rationally rather than put faith in irreason.

Homosexuals can either not see this or won't because it is too beneficial for their political aims to hurl the insult of "intolerance" and "discrimination" at their opponents.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 29, 2004.

Absolutely correct that God loves homosexuals. God loves bank robbers and adulterers and thieves and child abusers. He loves murderers and batterers and drug addicts. He loves car hijackers and people who sleep late on the Sabbath..he love folks who take His name in vain. He loved the first man He created..he loved Cain..he loved the soldiers who crucified Him. He loves us in our pride and vanity. He loves slanderers and gossipers too. God loves us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to suffer on the cross, die and be resurrected in Glory so that all of our sins could be forgiven. God's love for us doesn't mean that we can simply choose to continue sinning on and on and on with impunity. Jesus said to the woman who was going to be stoned to death "GO and sin no more." He didn't say, "It's all good."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

I think I’ve set some kind of record. In the space of an hour David accuses me of wanting homosexual perverts to be ordained priests and Dorian calls me gay-basher. Maybe if extremists from both ends of the spectrum are criticizing me I’m doing OK.

Dorian, you have severely distorted the meaning of Dr King’s “I have a dream” speech. You take “any other distinctions” out of his sentence “all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions.” And utterly distort a totally different sentence “a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character” into “a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin, {his religion, gender, or sexual orientation}, determines the content of his character” with a sneaky footnote that the words you have mischievously added were “Not specifically said, but implied by his inclusion of "ANY Other Distinctions”. Garbage. If Dr King didn’t think religion determined the content of a man’s character he wouldn’t have become a Christian preacher. It’s obvious to anyone that a person’s religion, sex and sexual inclinations affect his/her character.

You claim to be “informed, definitely” and from your reference to meat on Fridays you appear to be a Catholic. So how can you be so UNinformed about the very basis of the Catholic faith? Unlike protestant fundamentalist sects, Catholicism does NOT claim to be a “Bible based” religion. Yet you think that by saying “No where in the Bible does God specifically say "A child is to be denied a loving home because of it's parents sexual orientation"....I believe that it's okay for a gay/lesbian couple to adopt (a) child/ren, because there are NO scriptural teachings that say they can't.”, that ends the matter for Catholics. In any case both the Old and New Testaments clearly condemn homosexual acts as gravely sinful, as others have pointed out.

“though Church teachings say that homosexual/lesbian acts are wrong, many homosexual people simply do NOT believe gay sex is wrong in their hearts. So if we follow our Church's teachings on conscience, they are NOT sinning in their hearts before God. So they need NOT confess what is NOT a sin, and they MAY participate in the Sacraments of the Church. For 'me' to say otherwise is WRONG. “

You’ve got NO IDEA what the Church’s teaching on conscience is. The Pope doesn’t say, "This is what I personally think is wrong, but you all just make up your own minds what’s right and wrong to suit yourselves." Our consciences must be INFORMED. Even if someone was so mentally defective that he WASN’T able to work out from all the clear teaching in the Church’s teachings, traditions and scriptures, that homosexual acts are wrong, homosexual acts by him would STILL be a sin, just that he would bear diminished personal guilt for his actions. Anyone who's in the habit of commiting certain sin becomes an expert at finding supposed rationalisations and justifications to try to (almost) convince himself that it's not really a sin, or even that it's a GOOD thing. Believe me, I've done it myself. I've known scores of thieves, embezzlers and fraudsters and every one of them claimed that what he was doing wasn't really dishonest.

“A Gay/Lesbian Couple adopting a child and Gay/Lesbian Marriage are two different issues. The question was never should Gay/Lesbians be allowed to wed? Stay on topic here.”

That’s rich coming from someone who’s just introduced all sorts of irrelevant issues to disguise the illogic of her argument. But homosexual adoption and homosexual “marriage” ARE intimately related. In fact when the State gives a child to a homosexual “couple” it is effectively sanctioning their sexual union, just as if it gave them a marriage certificate. Yes all adoptive parents are sinners. But they don't ask the State to give its official blessing to their state of sin and institutionalize it as a good thing to be promoted.

Let’s get this straight. Heterosexual adulterers and weekend drug users make you “so grossed out, and disgusted” that you can’t even bear to be in the same room as them. You’re opposed to giving people a Chinese child if they’re not au fait with Chinese culture. But you’re perfectly OK with giving children to people who perform sexual acts that are not only morally illicit but against the most basic nature and purpose of sexuality itself! Even though you know there's an enormously increased risk to the child!

“homosexuals aren't given carte blanche. It's not just you like wo/men here have a kid, take two they're small. You make it sound like an exclusive club, with cool perks. Gracious how ridiculous! If anything I'd think they were put through more rigorous screening.”

OK my statement about “give them whatever they want” was a bit exaggerated, but you have exaggerated it much farther. The point is that everyone in authority is so terrified of being accused of “discriminating against homosexuals” that they don’t ask too many questions. With a massive waiting list of couples wanting to adopt, any screening process that does not begin with “Have you been married and trying to have a baby for at least 5 years?” can not by any stretch be described as “rigorous”.

“I meant SINGLE Parent..we're talking about adoption here, NOT how many people it takes to create a new life”

Oh no that doesn’t weasel you out of it. I was talking about how YOU described Angelina Jolie, Jacqui Onassis and Cleopatra as “single parents” and a raft of others as “children of single parents”. You were NOT talking about adoption. But of course you always “stay on topic”, don’t you, pet?

Nice quote from M/s Edelman too, but too bad it’s got nothing to do with the subject.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 29, 2004.

Dorian,

There are many opinions 'out there' -yours is just one of them -no referenced 'fact' = no credibility...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 29, 2004.

DANIEL: Here's a tip. Take everything you read with a grain of salt and be willing to do your own research. Just because I, or anyone else here or elsewhere can supply facts doesn't mean they shouldn't be double checked by you & the other readers themselves.

Everyone Else Against & Fixated on Homosexuals Rearing Children, using the excuse that they will bias them towards being Homosexuals: Many so called Normal Straight Parents don't teach their children Sexual Education. (if more did, we wouldn't need to have a course in our Schools).

So I strongly doubt that just because they're 'gay' they will automatically be handing their children 'The Joy Of Gay Sex' manuals as brainwashing primers. I'm fairly certain they're going to be more worried if little Johnny or Jane is getting the 4 basic food groups, not catching the chicken pox, getting them to their after school play dates & sports activities, or passing his/her spelling test on Friday.

'Most' Gay or Lesbians I've bothered to actually listen to, have said they wish they fit into society instead of felt persecuted for being different. So I'm sure they wouldn't 'wish' being gay on their children and would support and promote straight ideals. ex: Getting a mate of the opposite sex, being celibate until marriage, getting married, and having children.

But if they were, that just like straight parents they'd try to be supportive of them and be there for them.

There's been lots of talk about HIV/AIDS & STDs. People are under the misconception that only gays or bisexuals contract those diseases.

Here's a fact. HIV/AIDs/STDs is actually on the rise among widowed/ recently divorced men, especially OLDER (as in Senior Citizens) reentering the dating scene (particularly the men using Viagra). Many Senior related sites mention everything from getting better Medicare, to sex tips. But they don't mention that using a condom could prevent the transfer of HIV/AIDs & STDs.

>>> In 2002, for example, 110 men and 160 women 65 or older were diagnosed with chlamydia, according to Jessica Seiders, spokeswoman for the state health department. The same year, 44 men and 32 women that age were diagnosed with gonorrhea, and 46 seniors were diagnosed with syphilis, Seiders said.>>> (for the rest of the article: http://www.viagrapunch.com/news/aug04/news_aids_on_the_rise_17aug.html )

STEVE: I guess I didn't mention that I was morally grossed out over the swingers because they invited me for a tryst. (hence why I stopped hanging out). And the drug users were doing it around their children which I found unforgivable. Here's where I mention I was the Godmother of the drug users son, and she found fault with me for not taking drugs like she did, so I was none so kindly reminded that since I didn't give birth to the boy I had no say in how he was raised. So it's not a goody two shoes "Oh icky people, watch me judge them and run away!' And the fault I find with the people adopting the girl from China happens to stem from the fact, that they are actually only passing on racial stereotypes to their child, not any true Chinese Heritage, History or Culture.

>>>Speaking at an NGLTF conference in November 2000, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King, said she was sure her late husband would have welcomed homosexuals into the civil rights movement.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny...an inescapable network of mutuality... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," Mrs. King said. "Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.">>> (you want exacts get off your laurels and look it up on the Internet, I'm not your copy intern).

FYI. I don't believe, just from having read your input on this thread that you'd want perverts ordained. No one want's a pediophile/rapist/abuser of any sort in a position to harm others.

And yup, you're right, I stayed on topic with my opinion, then asked/commented on some of the other posters off topic statements.

And pet, Catholics do follow the Bible, where do you think our scriptural readings come from? Not conversations from the local Dairy Queen. From the Bible. Not the Koran or the Papyrus of Ani.

Actually I bothered researching the Church's teaching on Conscience, but I'm not the end all be all authority. And never claimed to be. After all I'm NOT God. I didn't write any of the parts of the Bible, nor am I a priest nor a mother superior. I'm a lay person like you.

And 'no' when the State gives a child to two people that doesn't make them 'married,' if it did, then guardians who didn't reside would suddenly be polygamists and parents that had joint custody wouldn't be divorced.

Ms. Edelman's quote had to do with children. And since the original topic question was should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children it was a great quote. But that's the nice thing about them. They can just reflect my mood

By the way, you were wrong. I did stay on topic mentioning Agelina Jolie (self admitted bisexual)..her son Maddox (sp?) is adopted from Cambodia (?) I believe..if not Cambodia, Thailand. The other single parents or children of single parents were a bonus of accomplished people for the posters who insisted that it took 2 parents to raise a child.

On topic with the original question? Technically oui.

LESLEY: Equating a Homosexual to Cain is..wow a stretch! You're right Jesus died for our sins. And then when we're baptized they get washed away again, then again every time we confess our sins. Then finally when we (you guessed it I am RC) have our last rites.

So in reality each of us judging eachother is out of line. We're human, we're bound to be imperfect by nature. But we have a chance to make amends every day and be right with God. So if we do that, then we can make it 'All Good.' As upsetting at it would be for a human to forgive what we considered a huge transgression it's not a second thought for God.

And the question was never did 'God' love Homosexuals. It was the fact that we as his followers are supposed to be loving and supportive, and welcome any fallen homosexual brothers and sisters back into the fold. Not make them feel like outcasts. (which I didn't imply that 'you' personally had/n't)

JOE: Why not just put a child in the best home possible? Be it a single parent, 2 parents or 2 guardians?

A non Monogamous Straight couple wouldn't make a good home for children either. It's not like just because someone is homosexual that they automatically have to fit the flamboyant guy/gal a blink stereotype. That's like saying in this decade all straight people are sexually active before marriage with multiple partners. (and they'd be bad candidates for parents).

The whole idea of being screened as potential parents, is you show 'why' you're a good candidate. The Case Workers aren't working on the basis of Affirmative Action. They don't have a quota of children that they 'must' house with a percentage of white seniors, or Asian yuppies, or gay billionaires.

Average monogamous 80 year old heterosexuals with no diseases of the mind or body? Good lord man! Where are they? Quick tell Bush's Surgeon General!!! They need to be tested, so they can learn their secrets and create a serum so the rest of America's Senior Citizens can get inoculated so they can get some Medicare & Prescription Medicine relief!

Yes, I'm pulling your leg. I'm sure they're not all in some Ponce de Leon Senior Living Center. I'm also pretty certain that you don't believe that ALL those 'Average monogamous heterosexual 80 year olds were only with one partner their entire lives..perhaps for their marriage (if they were lucky) but not their entire lives. Because Monogamous means only one sexual partner at a time. They could have been serially monogamous. And divorced/widowed multiple times.

But that would ruin your utopia of childhood sweethearts who marry after college and adopt all the orphans of the world. (yes, by now I'm just giddy with sarcasm..it's not personal..I'm just tired).

EVERYONE: Anti Bush, and well myself seem to be the minority on this thread. I get the idea that everyone else seems to think that God says love everyone, but detest sodomy. But different question, why all the 'hate'? Why aren't you trying to bring back fallen members to the church with love & compassion? Not really expecting any answers, it's actually more of something for people to ponder and think over by themselves.

I've really spent much more time here than I intended to posting. I hope that everyone has a wonderful holiday season, regardless of which faith they follow (assuming most of the readers & posters are Catholic as this is a Catholic board).

Like I said before I hope everyone's Advent Season is wonderful :)

OT and ever so much more positive a topic for all of us to share/talk about :)

How many of us are using an advent wreath this year? My family and I are. (I've loved lighting the candles since childhood). Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

If you judge people, you have no time to love them. ~Mother Teresa

-- Dorian (DorianApollo2@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.

Dorian,

You are confused by the morally relative 'truths' you embrace under the dissenting products of your not well informed conscience. If the product of your conscience is not aligned with Curch teaching it is not Truth no matter your morally relative pleadings...

Children do not speak to this issue as children do not have the maturity nor audience to address it. The issue involves not only the rights of homosexuals -IT involves the rights of and protection of children. In my opinion, the homosexual adoption issue is supported by those with malformed conscience who think they pursue justice even when sacrificing Truth. This support aids those homosexuals already selfishly pursuing disorder to selfishly pursue their own agendas that contravene Truth.

The Pontifical Council for the Family has specifically addressed this issue. A quote from the following document should answer the question as to homosexual adoption:

Excerpt from: CONCLUSIONS OF THE PASTORAL THEOLOGICAL CONGRESS:

"We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education"."

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 30, 2004.

Oh I agree - heterosexual monogamous couples who do drugs or who are dying of STDs should not be allowed to adopt children either. And certainly single moms and promiscuous heterosexuals ought not be given charge of children either since the ideal is: loving and stable, healthy monogramous heterosexual couple.

The less problems the couple have (biological, emotional, psychological) the better.

And as we both agree - the whole point of parenthood is the good of the children, not the whim of the parents.

Like I said before, on the bell curve you will always find some exceptions on the extremes - I'm absolutely sure there are lesbian couples out there who are the nicest folk you'd ever want to know... but even so, two aunts raising a child isn't the same thing as a loving mom and dad raising that child. As long as we're talking about what's best, second best doesn't count.

And you haven't faced the sad reality of the bell curve either - most homosexual couples aren't the "best case scenerio" ones. And if we open adoption to gay couples there won't be any legal process of screening out for the less excellent ones as the whole thing will hinge not on what's best for the child but what the individuals involved FEEL is best.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.

Bible calls homosexuality an abomination - Leviticus 18:22 —

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

God doesn't wan't His children being raised by an "abomination". Don't kid yourself!

-- - (David@excite.com), November 30, 2004.

Yeah Dorian I’ll talk about advent wreaths on another thread, but I’m not going to totally change the subject of this thread just because you’ve realized your argument doesn’t hold water.

You’re tilting at windmills.

“There's been lots of talk about HIV/AIDS & STDs. People are under the misconception that only gays or bisexuals contract those diseases.“ No else mentioned AIDS here except YOU when you claimed we have to let homosexuals adopt children in order to PREVENT them getting AIDS.

“Everyone Else Against & Fixated on Homosexuals Rearing Children, using the excuse that they will bias them towards being Homosexuals“ Nope, no one claimed that either.

“why all the 'hate'? Why aren't you trying to bring back fallen members to the church with love & compassion?” No one expressed “hatred”. No one claimed that homosexuals should not be accepted with love and compassion. They certainly should, in the Church itself particularly. The Catholic Church unequivocally condemns all forms of homophobia. The Church welcomes all sinners and treats all sinners the same. The Church doesn’t say to adulterers, drug abusers, racists OR active homosexuals “Just go on committing your sin and you’ll be a fine adoptive parent”; she says, “repent and stop sinning”. Of course M L King would have welcomed homosexuals into the human rights movement. He certainly would NOT have told them that committing homosexual acts is just fine and dandy and that they would make good adoptive parents! LOL!

Didn’t anyone ever teach you the history (not to mention the very nature) of your own Church? The Catholic Church is NOT based on the Bible just because we use Bible readings at Mass. It’s the other way around. The Catholic Church produced the Bible in the 4th century as an expression of the faith it already had, the same faith it has today. Your TOTAL reliance on personal interpretation of scripture (“if your wife truly believed in her heart that her opinions were grounded firmly in Loving Christian Scripture then nothing anyone else said, or thought should have shook her belief in her convictions.”) is utterly alien to Catholicism.

When some express their views on who would or would not likely make good adoptive parents, and those views differ from yours, you retort “I'm NOT God. I CANNOT judge who can give a good home.” Then you go on to do exactly that, imposing a whole raft of conditions ( no drugs, no adultery, no possession of racial stereotypes, etc.) Fortunately in most cases God decides to whom He will give children. But in the case of children given up for adoption, someone delegated by the community HAS to judge who can give a good home. Unless you want to resort to simply drawing the names of everyone who wants a child out of a hat . I repeat, the pool of children available for adoption is vanishingly small, and the community and the relinquishing mother has every right to expect that only the very best candidates with the least likelihood of danger to the child, will be selected as adoptive parents. In fact if your proposal was accepted the pool of children would dry up completely. It is usually a heartbreaking decision to give up a child, and the only thing that sustains the relinquishing mother is the thought “at least my baby will be getting the one thing I can’t give her – a mommy and daddy married to each other”.

“Instead of worrying if a Church Going Roman Catholic Gay couple is going to adopt a little girl from China and make sure she gets all her sacraments… Why not be more concerned and pray that they get adopted into loving families and NEVER have to grow up as amoral, unloved miserable orphans who have no choices, never get to hear Gods word and have to work in some 3rd World sweat shop for less than minimum wages or worse yet die from AIDs or some other horrible STD”

When they take her to classes to prepare for the Sacraments what will they say when the child is taught correctly that homosexual acts are sinful? When they go to confession with her will they tell the priest “I don’t believe we’re committing a sin, therefore we are not”? Your consumerist mentality strikes again. Sacraments are not something you “get” so that you can tick them all off the list for your collection of the full set.

So great, ONE of the SEVEN cases you claimed are successful adoptive “single” parents was actually an adoption. And as that one adopted child is still a baby you can hardly claim it as a proven success.

“I get the idea that everyone else seems to think that God says love everyone, but detest sodomy.” And detest every other sin. You got one thing right. I’ll repeat again your quote from Gandhi : God wants us to hate sin, but love the sinner. It’s not rocket science. I certainly want those who love me to hate the sins I have committed.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 30, 2004.

Bravo Steve.

May I copy your reply for future use (attributing your nom de cyber of course)?

Thanks for taking the time to spell things out so clearly and charitably.

Joe

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.

You’re welcome Joe. Funny, sometimes when I write in just the same style some people don't seem to think I'm being clear and charitable at all.

I guess we have to hope that one day a homosexual “couple”, like the adulterous couple and the druggie couple, will invite Dorian to join in their activities. THEN she would no doubt decide that homosexuals are ALSO repulsive and disgusting and not to be allowed to adopt.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 02, 2004.

Actually I was ending on a positive note, because I'm through with the negativism. Nothing anyone says here will make me believe that there are any differences between a good loving family. No matter what the parents sexual orientations are, or if they're single.

Adopting children doesn't prevent AIDS. Safe Sex techniques such as using Condoms, and even better yet, Abstinence prevents AIDS. The laws of physics still apply here Steve. 'I' never said adoption prevented AIDs if it did, that might explain the 'child shortage' you believe exists.

Martin Luther King would have wanted children to have a wonderful family. He would have judged each set of gaurians/parents on their merit. Not solely by their sexual orientation.

My raft of conditions are the things that Adoption Agencies look into. They don't just say "oh look another couple who wants a kid, Well we only have a few left, better just hand the tot over."

What "vanishing small pool of available children are you referencing too?" Do you mean vanishing small pool of white male newborns with no drug or alcohol dependence? Or are you talking about the vast amount of real children that are available in the world for adoption?

And what "Most mothers have every right to expect only the best candidates"? are you talking about?

You're obviously not taking into account the amount of children that are completely unwanted and are just being turned over, (like the rash of female newborns that are spared death in China and put up for adoption instead. Or the many teen, unwed women who are talked into putting up their children for adoption instead of abortion.) or the amount of orphans from third world countries where the mother died and no one will or can care for it. (thinking of the children orphaned in particular in Africa where the parents died of AIDS and the kids are lucky to make it to orphan farms. Or where the mother is destitute and sells the child).

You make it sound as though children are a sparse commodity. If every person (that was mentally, physically, monetarily and emotionally able) that wanted a child could adopt, and WOULD adopt any child they could 'THEN' there might be some child shortage.

But most people only want a child of their ethnic group, that's a newborn. They don't want an older orphaned child, nor are they willing to learn how to be a good parent to a child with any mental, physical and emotional problems.

Steve, those that love you shouldn't be hating your sins. They should be more concerned with accepting their own short comings and making themselves right with God.

I have no idea what sort of things they taught you as a child in Catechism or Catholic School, but where I live, homosexuality was never covered as part of my Sacraments. It actually never came up. And my parents never joined me in the confessional. What you say makes no sense.

What the child wishes to confess, is up to the child. And unless the child is a practicing homosexual, even then what her/his parents do or don't do wouldn't be an issue, because they are of no concern to her/him. You can't go to confession and confess someone else's sins for them. You go to confession and confess your own. If you knew your religion you'd know that.

Steve, Homosexuals, Bisexuals & Lesbians aren't a threat. They just exist. And they're no more terrifying than you're obvious lack of control over your thought process and inability to realize that not everyone shares your Homophobia.

When a homosexual (in my case Lesbian) propositions you, you respond like an adult 'No thank you.' Having been propositioned before, I can tell you it's simple. Just like with a straight person of the opposite sex, they understand 'No.'

Well, most do. You'll get the occasional jerk that's persistent like the usual moron at the Church Mixer that won't take 'no' as an honest, no dance tonight or ever. Then you just have to be more firm.

If it was a supposed couple. Like the supposed Swingers were, then a normal person would think if they asked 'you' how many others have they approached and received yes's for, then you think of that old commercial, you are everyone you sleep with (the STD one) and in this day of rampant AIDS and STDs you think ew! And if they're the sort to be persistent, you stop associating with them.

Then you wonder if they're just eager to get everyone in bed, that it must take a lot of time, so what possible quality time could they be spending with their children if they're just too busy being hedonistic? (They lost thier foster son btw)

If they're drug addicts that are preaching that they're wonderful parents, but you witness them doing drugs around their children, you know the children are learning horrible things for the rest of their lives, as well as being exposed to second hand marijuana, or worse. So they're not really being good parents if they're stoned out of their mind. They aren't there if their child needs them.

And in either case, you'd have to wonder if they were that out of it and hedonistic, if they even cared who they were exposing their child/ren too. Which puts them in harms way.

Whereas just because a homosexual/lesbian couple/gaurdian has a child, and their either celibate, or practicing behind closed doors like any other normal married couple/single parent, then that's not harming the child in any way shape or form.

FYI: >>>(5) The authentic text (BIBLE), legitimately promulgated, is a source and rule of faith, though it remains only a means or instrument in the hands of the teaching body of the Church, which alone has the right of authoritatively interpreting Scripture.

(full article located at Catholic Encyclopedia: Scripture: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm)>>>

I strongly suggest instead of continuing to bicker over the Internet with strangers you should bother going to your local seminary, cathedral or one of your local Catholic colleges, etc., to enroll in a quite a few theology courses before you bother throwing around your personal puerile opinions as though they were facts everytime you're faced with views that differ from your own.

DAVID: I read your Lev. And raise you some Samuel: 1 Samuel 18 1-3 "By the time David finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan had become as fond of David as if his life depended on him; he loved him as he loved himself." 2 "Saul laid claim to David that day and did not allow him to return to his father's house." 3 "And Jonathan entered into a bond with David, because he loved him as himself." 2 Samuel 1:26 "When the boy had left, David rose from beside the mound and prostrated himself on the ground three times before Jonathan in homage. They kissed each other and wept aloud together."

2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! most dear have you been to me; More precious have I held love for you than love for women."

As stated before, but now more FIRMLY. I'd hoped to end my postings on this particular thread with something upbeat, but apparently it wasn't appreciated.

Nothing changes my mind, especially the very flimsy excuses that have been used here that would dissuade me of encouraging any homosexual or lesbian individuals or couples from adopting. I still strongly believe that they would be wonderful parents.

This is the last I have to say on the subject. I won't bother with responding to other messages on this thread, so don't direct any to me.

Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, Since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be. ~Thomas a Kempis

-- Dorian (DorianApollo2@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.

Dorian,

Your dissenting morally relative arguments are still dissenting and morally relative. Yes, I did note your dissent was a bit FIRMER and your moral relativity a bit more CREATIVE...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 03, 2004.

Dorian,

I hate their sins, but I love them( I think :-))

But, they have severe mental problems and don't dare deserve to have a baby to raise.The childs' mind will be warped from the start! You can't even marry a Muslim or one of those man made relegions if you don't promise to raise the baby Catholic.

How in the world can you make this promise as a homosexual that is shacked up with another one? Isn't anal sex one of the deadly sins? Come on now girl wake up and smell the coffee.

Have a holy Advent season, and may God bless you.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2004.

Nothing anyone says here will make me believe that there are any differences between a good loving family. No matter what the parents sexual orientations are, or if they're single.” (Dorian) If they’re single, then by definition they’re not a family.

“Adopting children doesn't prevent AIDS. …'I' never said adoption prevented AIDs”

‘fraid you did, Dor: ““Instead of worrying if a Church Going Roman Catholic Gay couple is going to adopt a little girl from China and make sure she gets all her sacraments… Why not be more concerned and pray that they get adopted into loving families and NEVER have to grow up as amoral, unloved miserable orphans who have no choices, never get to hear Gods word and have to work in some 3rd World sweat shop for less than minimum wages or worse yet die from AIDs or some other horrible STD”

“Safe Sex techniques such as using Condoms….prevents AIDS.” No they don’t Dor. Even the condom promoters have given up calling condoms “safe sex”. At best it is “safer sex”. Wherever condoms have been used as the primary weapon against HIV, the HIV rate has gone UP. Where abstinence has been used as the primary weapon, the HIV rate has gone DOWN. May I ask in what sense you describe yourself as “a Catholic”, other than that you “got all your sacraments” as a little girl?

“Martin Luther King would have wanted children to have a wonderful family. He would have judged each set of gaurians/parents on their merit. Not solely by their sexual orientation.” Exactly what I said. And if they were habitually committing any sexual perversions he would have said they had little or no “merit” as a prospective adopter. And before you mention the perverted orgies which M L King supoposedly took part in, you'd better have more proof (which no-ne else has ever provided) that this wasn't just a lie concocted by the KKK in conjuction with racist elements in the FBI and police.

“My raft of conditions are the things that Adoption Agencies look into. They don't just say "oh look another couple who wants a kid, Well we only have a few left, better just hand the tot over." Exactly as I said again. Someone HAS to “judge” the merits of the applicants, no matter how disagreeable you find it that they take the applicants sexual perversions into account when judging them.

“You're obviously not taking into account … the rash of female newborns that are spared death in China and put up for adoption instead. Or the many teen, unwed women who are talked into putting up their children for adoption instead of abortion.” Hey, you make it sound like this is a BAD thing. Unfortunately it doesn’t happen very often these days, but yes I was taking them into account.

“most people only want a child of their ethnic group, that's a newborn. They don't want an older orphaned child, nor are they willing to learn how to be a good parent to a child with any mental, physical and emotional problems.” True. But God bless them, there are some couples who say “give us the most difficult child to place” and sometimes even they can’t get a child. You yourself mentioned ethnic awareness. It’s obviously preferable that if at all possible, the adoptive parents have the same race, religion, culture and nationality as the child. And putting a child with mental, physical, or emotional problems with a homosexual “couple” grappling with their own deep-seated mental, physical and emotional problems is just asking for disaster for all concerned.

It’s sad that no-one ever taught you that homosexual acts are sinful and dangerous. But you can’t blame your ignorance on those who taught you as a child long ago. As an adult, it’s up to you to inform yourself. Many of us here have tried to help you. But then as I (and I think, several of the others who have posted here) am a “white male” you do not consider me to be “real” so I guess you will ignore everything we say as you pretend we don’t really exist. I’m still trying to work out how you conclude that I’m talking only about male children when I referred to the adopted child as “her”.

“Steve, those that love you shouldn't be hating your sins.” It’s becoming horridly fascinating how bizarrely illogical you can be. So my former boss who thinks I did a good job should “love” the fact that I embezzled money from him? My wife and kids should “love” the fact that I shouted at them, and neglected to spend the time with them that I should have? Etc.

“unless the child is a practicing homosexual, even then what her/his parents do or don't do wouldn't be an issue, because they are of no concern to her/him.” You obviously don’t know any children. “You can't go to confession and confess someone else's sins for them. You go to confession and confess your own. If you knew your religion you'd know that.” Very funny. But I think even you are perspicacious enough to see what I really meant. It’s no use telling a child to go to Confession but not going yourself. “Do as I say, not as I do”, never works. You obviously know NOTHING about children.

“Steve, Homosexuals, Bisexuals & Lesbians aren't a threat. They just exist. And they're no more terrifying than you're obvious lack of control over your thought process and inability to realize that not everyone shares your Homophobia.” Let’s see I can’t spot any "lack of control over my thought processes" or anything illogical in MY thoughts expressed here. As for yours...…I daresay I know a lot more homosexuals than you. And know them on a deeper level, having to deal with their psychological problems. None of them finds me “homophobic”. Hardly any of them have any time for the tiny unrepresentative minority who form the so-called “gay lobby” which dominates the media and pushes for things like homosexual “marriage” and adoption. But many well-meaning but ignorant heterosexuals like you have been swallowed their propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Thanks for the advice on how to say no to sexual propositions, but I don’t think I need it. Just because I contribute to a Catholic site doesn’t mean I have been locked away in a cloister all my life.

You obviously find it hard to grasp, with your sheltered view of the mythical ideal “stable homosexual couple” but your “reasons” for not associating with and opposing adoption for heterosexual adulterers and drug addicts apply just as much, in fact more so, to homosexuals. Homosexuals can ALSO be promiscuous, in fact they’re nearly always more so than heteros. (And I'm not just talking the 2 or 3 partners over 60 years that you sneered at re heteros. I'm talking dozens, scores, in some cases hundreds.) And due to their underlying psychological problems, exacerbated by their parasexual activities, they are also far MORE prone to drug abuse. This is a FACT, Dor, I treat them for it.

In the extremely unlikely event that a so-called “homosexual couple” was “celibate” (you mean “chaste”)but still living together, that would still be a grave danger as not only would they be placing temptation under their noses all the time, but most of the other reasons why they would not make good adoptive “parents” would still apply.

Your disgusting attempt to twist scripture to try to make it suggest, let alone endorse, some kind of perverted sexual act between David and Jonathan, says more about your character than anything else. And if it’s not a rude question, why do you use a man’s name and the name of a pagan god for your “handle”?

So in summary, it’s not just about religion. Not only for spiritual reasons, but for physical, mental, emotional and social reasons, adoptive children should NOT be given to homosexuals. Not all “discrimination” is bad.

God bless and hope your Advent wreath is going well.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

Thank you, Steve for a great post. I don't think anyone could have said it better. I hope Dorian reads this and her mind; better yet her heart can be turned toward God's true teaching and she can dispel any lies she has been fed and fallen for.

And you also said.... And due to their underlying psychological problems, exacerbated by their parasexual activities, they are also far MORE prone to drug abuse. This is a FACT, Dor, I treat them for it. --Steve

If I may ask, what do you do? Are you a psycologist or counselor? Nurse maybe? Have a good day !

Thanks and glory be to God! Happy Advent Season Ya'll !

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), December 08, 2004.

I'm appalled at all of you. I am a confirmed Catholic, but I no longer consider myself so, due to my disagreements with the churches views on MANY issues. Now, if I remember correctly, I was taught to be patient, and understanding. I was taught, that as a Catholic, we should be forgiving of everyone. To make assumptions such as the ones made here goes against all of that. For all you know, homosexuals view all Catholics as something they're not, or based upon experiences with a single member of their ranks. Stop making yourselves look so unaccepting, stop making yourselves look closed minded. Stop craning your neck up at your God for five minutes and take a look at the world around you. According to your beliefs, he made all of these people. He is their father, as well as your father. Treat these people as you would treat your sibling, and they may treat you the same. And you may yet be saved. Merry Christmas.

-- Brian (kornbdh2@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

Suzanne, I am a pharmacist. I work in a large methadone clinic, and though I am not really a counsellor, I have to give a lot of counselling to drug addicts. A large proportion of them are homosexuals.

Yes, Brian, I know a lot more than ONE homosexual. My wife’s cousin was also a homosexual. My wife was very close to him as they were the same age and brought up in the same house. Contrary to the much vaunted legend of the “devoted homosexual couple”, as soon as he was no longer healthy, physically attractive, and “young” (to homosexuals this means a teenager) enough, his supposed “lovers” dropped him like a hot potato and left him to be nursed by his heartbroken family until he died of AIDS, still in his twenties. I know a lot more about homosexuals than I even WANT to know, pal.

I do try to be patient and understanding with everyone, but I admit I find it hard to keep doing so when people like you and Dorian keep coming out with your knee-jerk “you hate homosexuals” mantra every time anyone suggests that giving in to everything the “gay lobby” demands might not be the most “loving” way to behave towards homosexuals. Yes we certainly should be forgiving and accepting of everyone, just as God forgives and accepts all of us sinners who admit our sins. The one person God, and we, CAN’T forgive, is the person who is too proud to admit that he is a sinner and demands that God and his fellow men ignore his sin, or even demands that they pretend that his sin is something good to be treasured.

YOU look at the world around you and see what is going on in the REAL world, not in some imagined utopia full of mythical “stable loving homosexual couples”. My mind is not closed, but I don’t leave it hanging so open that all my brains fall out of it.

I only wish the tiny unrepresentative set who form the “gay lobby” WOULD start treating Catholics with the same love, care and understanding with which the Catholic Church treats homosexuals (within and outside the Church). That WOULD make a merry and truly "gay" Christmas for everyone.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 09, 2004.

Brian,

Homosexuality is a disordered condition. Homosexual activity is an abomination against God. You should embrace Truth rather than delusion that prompts you to be divided from and appalled by Truth...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 09, 2004.

Brian..I'm sad that you disagree with your Church on "many issues" and no longer consider yourself Catholic. I was once there myself when I was younger. You suggested that people stop craning their necks looking up to God and look at the world around them..

We are all "in" this world for a very brief period of time Brian. I look around me right now at possessions I have..in less than 40 more years they will ALL either be in the trash heap or belong to someone else..I won't be HERE. And so what value should I put upon them? How much time and effort should I devote to them?

I look at the other people in my life. My husband, my children, my grandchildren, my brother..my friends, my acquaintences, my neighbors, strangers I see and exchange a smile with..in less than 40 years I will not be here "in this world" to be around them any longer. C.S. Lewis said that Everyone we meet is an eternal being..the question is, where will they spend eternity? And so, it IS the constant looking up to God which is important Brian. It IS the importance of remembering that Jesus instructed us to be ready always because we will not know the date and hour of His return. ALL of God's people are precious..what kind of loving person would not REMIND his brother to prepare himself for ETERNAL LIFE?

There is a difference between standing and pointing at people with righteous indignation saying "God hates you and so do I, you homosexual pervert." and embracing a fellow sinner with sincere concern and saying, "PLEASE turn away from your sin and come back to God as pure as He made you to be.We struggle together to overcome sin in our lives..we are the same."

If Catholics supported homosexuals adopting children, we would have to support the sin of homosexuality..we don't. Catholics would prefer to have people turn away from sin and be prepared to embrace eternal life. This world is beautiful, yet this world is not the world to be concerned about..

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.

I'm appalled at all of you.

{bEING APPAULED BY THE POSITION WE TAKE IS NOTHIGN NEW. sADLY, TIS THE STANDARD EMOTIONAL REACTION OEN GETS WHEN CONFRONTIGN PLITICAL CORRECTNESS...}-Zarove

I am a confirmed Catholic, but I no longer consider myself so, due to my disagreements with the churches views on MANY issues.

{Im not Catholic at all. Not relaly Protestnat either. Grew up ad still consider myself Cruh of Christ. I call myself Protestnat reluctantly nwo as I attend ( Bug am not a member of) 4 Square Gopsel services. So what? We arent here to discuss theological disparagies on this thread, btu Homosexual adoption, which you fail to een address, and instead prefer to be appauled and denegrating.Is this loving?}-Zarove

Now, if I remember correctly, I was taught to be patient, and understanding.

{As was I, but patience and understanding doesnt translate into midnless aceptance of any behaviour no matter how absurd , ridiculous, or destuctive. Im not accepting of Smokign as it causes a mirad of health problems. I bet you would never clal me a Bigot for taking such a stand agaisnt a desttirctive practice, and my stand is based on understanding the harmful effects of smoking. Homosecuality, howevr, is another matter. Im closedd minded and bogoted because I don acept this behaviour, heaven forbid it be base don my knowledge of its cost, the damage it enerates to body and soul, and the factat it has the potetial to erode all of society. I have to be "Undertsanding" in that I must acept it and pretend not to notice the bad things...Othereixe Im closed minded...}-Zarove

I was taught, that as a Catholic, we should be forgiving of everyone.

{But do you sincerley equate forgiveness with open acceptance? If a child pulls another childs hair, woudl you just forive the child and let them keep dougn it? Or woujdl tyou forgive them this action only after they have made clear there regret and promsied not to again? Honestly frgiveness isnt the same as blind aceptance.}-Zarove

To make assumptions such as the ones made here goes against all of that.

{I make no asusmtions, however,t he Data reveals that Chuldren raised in Homosexual environments tend to hve higher rates of depresion, anti-social behaviour, sexual promiscuity, and other clinical issues. The Data is freely available to any who want it, but I suppose int h name of Tolertence we shoudl ignore it...}-Zarove

For all you know, homosexuals view all Catholics as something they're not, or based upon experiences with a single member of their ranks.

{"Homosexuals" dont veiw "CaTHOLICS" in any way. Homosexuality isnt a religion or even a social nethce. Many Homosxals wil hate cahtolcis, many will be indiferent and nto care, and man are Catholic. ( Do a web sear for "Dignity". Youll see what I mean.) You perform here the sam logical fallacy you accuse the posters you critisise of, you lump all Homosexuals togater as if they all march lock-step inthere beelifs on every matter of life. That speaks volumes of your own veiw of Homosexuals.}-Zarove

Stop making yourselves look so unaccepting, stop making yourselves look closed minded.

{Closed-Minded is nto the same as Unaccepting. And beign accepting is not always being open minded.

When Hitler took power, Pope Pius the 12th was the only vice denouncing him, he was nto accepting. Was he wrong?

Not accepting doemthing is the same as closed mindedness, therefre all who oppose Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK are closed minded.

Be realistic. we are ebign ipen minded, your the one not. You assume that only by acpeitng Homosexuality as natural, notmal, and healyhy, and encouragign it, woudl one be open minded, and you refuse to even consider that those whodotn accept it reject it basd upon undertsanding of its ramifications.

If we know soemthign is unhealty, we have a moral obligation to denounce it. Smokign is denoundcedby me because of its effects, as I mentioend earlier. Tis means I am unacceptign of Smoking.des this make me closed minded?

I htink your beign closed minded sicne you refuse to even consider the possible harm you do by allowin Homosexual conduct. Its not love to blndly accept any cours eof action.}-Zarove

Stop craning your neck up at your God for five minutes and take a look at the world around you.

{I have, have you? Have you relaly seen the real world/ You may pretend that we are a lot of Holy Joes who never even walk doen the streed and turn out noses at others, whel you ar always emersed in the real world and understand real people, but this is all emoion and rhetoric that we are all tired of. The relaity is this. Homosexuality kills. It makes quality of life less for the active Homosexual. It demeans them and destorys them mentlaly and physiclaly. This si what we ee when we se the real world. we also see anger, ahtred, and vehnom aimed at peopel who try to end it, because those trapped in sin, laden with pain and suffering of there own, cannot bare the light we offer, for it expoes the secrets they hide as they walk in darkness.

why doy you take a look, a real look, inot he eyes of a Homoseuxal, see the emoiness, and lonliness, the oain, even in open and accepted Homosexuals, cuased y there own lifestyle, and not by us.

I have a lesbian Aunt, I know gay poeple, even those in ideal situations are misurable.

ou want us to see the real world, why dont you try it?}-Zarove

According to your beliefs, he made all of these people.

{He also made Geoffrey Dahamer and Charles Manson, ths doesnt mean we accept there conduct. Simpley beleivign God made htem doesnt mean we acceot there sin as if its righeousnes, or does forgiveness equate to blind acceptance.}-Zarove

He is their father, as well as your father.

{And if our Brother or our sister disobeys our Father, we shoudl just wink at i and let it go? If you had a brother or sister, and they where on drugs and alcahol, wodl that be OK?}-Zarove

Treat these people as you would treat your sibling, and they may treat you the same.

{What makes you think we dont? Do you honeslty htink if we have Gay or Lesbian siblings we woidl be molre aceptign of the behaviour? Do you relaly think that by not acceptign the behaviour and establishign a boundary, we are beign unloiving?

Again, sin is sin because it destorys. Homosexuality destorys these people. If they are my brithers and sisters, then its all the more pressing for me to help them overcoem there sin, and it does not move me to greater accwance of ther behaviour. Neither is it hatred to reect tthere destructivr behaviour.}-Zarove

And you may yet be saved.

You relaly think that our salvaiton rests on a flase love that allows peopel to do as they pelae dispite th consequences and say "It snot my problem", while they ruin there lives? Are you that conceited?}- Zarove

Merry Christmas.

{And God Bless, may he open thy eyes, mortal man.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 09, 2004.

Steve, Dorian (which I actually pronounce Door-ee-Anne because in RL I'm Female.) is actually a place name so can be for either gender. I think there's even a female Dorian on a popular US Daytime Soap.

Apollo was a Lunar Space Program, is also the name of a famous theater, the name of a rather tasty pro wrestler, the name of a Buick, the name of a college and a group of Asian hospitals. A name of a fictitious (male: who pronounces it Door- ee-in) Air Force Lt. Col. in a series e-published on the Internet, & the nom de plume I used, because I'm too busy to get spammed, and don't care if that RPG address gets mail or not, because it never gets read.

The name was chosen because both were Greek. & the character's Greek, and because the storey is science fiction (hence Apollo Lunar Space Program). But I really don't think you wanted to have an authors 'how to create fitting names for fictional characters' writers tip.

And yes the characters wife, Mrs. Apollo, makes many cracks about his golden hair rivaling the Ancient Greek Sun Gods.

Thanks for asking, because it's always fun to share.

And for the record. You're mistaken. I 'DID' mean Celibate. (definition) 1 One who abstains from all sexual intercourse. 2 Unmarried; unwed.

'You' meant Chaste (definition) a. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse. b.Abstaining from all sexual intercourse; celibate.

The Advent wreath is great. I was able to find some really wonderful roses, and very nice evergreen boughs, that I was able to snip down so they were more managable. I even found a fantastic Advent Calender to use with my family. And a nice site online that had some great Advent Readings to say every sunday.

Hope your & everyone else's holiday season is abundantly blessed :)

Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effort to include all: A Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year!!!

-- Dorian (DontAgree_IDontCare@Yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

Heloo brother and sisters! I know homosexuakity is wrong,

How do YOU know that for sure ??

yet what about a gay or lesbian couple adopting a child? I feel that's probaly wrong too, right?

Wrong is the wrong idea you've got , but I agree , a kid needs a father & mother !! __ But , what incase of an alone standing woman , or woman that's been raped and still wants the kid , or even not married hetero couples , or a widow who's husband died before kid is/was born ??

Or what incase , if a lesbian couple has adopted a kid , or one of them gives the birth to a baby , would you (or do you have the right to) take the kid away from her ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 12, 2004.

You must excuse me for not watching soap operas Dorian but the only Dorian I have previously heard of is the male title character in “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, the novel by Oscar Wilde (a Catholic who struggled with his homosexual temptations for many years, falling many times, and eventually overcame them through his faith and confessed his sins. He would have been horrified had he known that one day some people, even some Catholics, would seriously suggest that homosexuality is harmless or even good.) Maybe you should spell it “Dorianne”.

Sorry but your definitions for “celibate” and “chaste” are mistaken.

Oxford: "Chaste : abstaining from extramarital or from all sexual intercourse; pure, virtuous, decent (from Latin “castus”, “pure”). Celibate: COMMITTED to abstention from sexual relations and from marriage, especially for religious reasons(from Latin Caelibatus, “unmarried state”)."

Merriam-Webster “Celibate: (noun, and adjective describing) a person who lives in celibacy. Celibacy: the state of not being married; abstention from sexual intercourse, abstention by vow from marriage. Chaste: innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse; celibate; pure in thought and act; modest;…free from all taint of what is lewd or salacious; refraining from acts or even thoughts or desires that are not virginal or not sanctioned by marriage vows: “they maintained chaste relations”."

Everyone should be chaste. Only a very few make a solemn vow never to marry, which makes them “celibate”. “Chaste” may occasionally be used for the more restricted meaning “celibate”, but it is wrong to say “celibate” when you mean simply “chaste”.

Laurent, I agree a kid needs a father and a mother (btw how do YOU know THAT for sure?). In some cases like those you mention, a kid is tragically and unintentionally deprived of a mother and/or a father. But it is wrong to DELIBERATELY place a kid in this tragic situation.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 12, 2004.

(still off topic) Steve, it's okay, I don't watch Soaps either. I just know that on one of them I fairly certain there's a woman named Dorian as well.

Yup, I'm familiar with dandy Oscar. Very tragic personal life, I agree. Excellent author though. Enjoy his works. And his quips are a riot. Only saw the original "Portrait Of Dorian Grey" recently, and yes I'm supposed to be an adult, but even though the techniques are utterly prehistoric compared to current film special effects. I can honestly say it was scarey and spooked me.

Particularily liked the actor Stephen Fry's portrayal of him in the film "Wilde". But then again, I'm a film buff. (*Side note: "Wilde" is only suggested to mature film buffs. Not for minors or those easily mortified by what might be considered indecent themes. So I don't want to hear any gripes of so and so said this flick was good. Then I got grossed out, or my kid was asking me peculiar questions because I didn't bother to watch the movie by myself first to see if it was suitable viewing matierial for Jr.) Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In and effort to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (blahblah@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

For all the teasing I've given you for asking about my name Steve, It's funny that you're on a Catholic board, but you automatically think of Apollo the mythical God of Light. And not the Martyr, St. Apollonius who's feast day is the 18th of April. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effor to include people of all faith: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (yaddaYadda@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.

No, it's not funny. If you called yourself Augustus I’m sure Catholics would conclude it was after the Roman Emperor Augustus (August) rather than after St Augustine (Augustinus) of Hippo or St Augustine of Canterbury. We all conclude "anti-bush" is opposed to G W Bush, not to the Bushmen of south Africa.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 15, 2004.

Actually if I chose the name you suggested, I'd have made it Agustine or Agustina.

And yes, I still find it funny you chose to single out the Mythic Greek God, instead of Using your rationalization, since Roman Catholic Saints weren't first on your mind, and GREAT historical namesakes were, that you didn't even consider

Appolonius Of Tyana, 1st-2nd century ad, philosopher and mathematician of Greek origin, Christianity.

Apollonius of Perga the Great Geometer, mathematician.

And AntiBush could be more than just a anti american 2 term president G.W. name.

Those of us less sheltered could think it meant something else.

It could be someone who didn't like Kate Bush's or Gavivn Rossdales band Bush vocal styles. Or a Gardener who liked trees or flowers better than bushes. Or perhaps it's an innuendo? It could even be someone who doesn't much care for the Australian Outback (Bush) or it's people (Bush people).

Though I tend to believe he doesn't fancy G.W. But who can blame him? I don't much fancy the puppet myself.

So yes. I think your mental leaps have been particularily humourous. But they're yours to make.

Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effort to include readers of all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (blah@yahoo.com), December 16, 2004.

Hannuka is over, so please stop wishign peopel a Happy Hannuka...Its as out of place a me wishing them a Happy Thanksgiving...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 16, 2004.

I happen to enjoy the holiday season, and if I want to continue to wish my Buddhist happy Rohastu (over what? the first week of dec? but still a december holiday) & Jewish friends happy Haunkah (over by what? a few days tops) I hardly consider it 'rude'. Exhuberant maybe.

It's better than not bothering to wish anyone anything and trying to make yourself sound like a Jewish Theologian, when you can't even be respectful and post the name of G-d the correct way. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

in an effort to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (HappyHaunukah@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

I didnt call it rude, I said it was pout of place. And coem to think of it, one of my closest friends is a Jew. Lets not pretend here...if I wished her Happy hannuka right nowe she woiudl look at me funny...cause hannuka is over.

All Im saying is that wishing people a happy hannukah when hannukah just ended is silly and poinless, they have to wait a full year for it to have relevance...

Oh and spellign it G-d is a relativley recent development. God was used, as a word, as a substatute for YHVH, or else Adoni, menaing "lord", since the sacred name was not to be uttered for fear of taking the name in Vain, one of the Ten Commandments.

Later, as time progressed, God became he name of God,and not merley what he was, and so, I beelive int he 20th century, the innovation of spellign it G-d came about to prevent disrespect for THIS name of God, hwoever, not all Jews do this.

If you read soem theology books by Modern Jews, and epecially those by older sources, you will find the term still Spelled God and not in the fragmented G-d.

All THAT said, Im a Christain, and always have been, therefoe its not disrespectufk since it has never been seen as such by Christains.

Finally, if you htink I was trhign to sound like a Jewish theologian in the above Post, your making a bizzarre elap pf logic, I was merley pointing out the obvious.

Try the experement, go to a Jewish Board, and wish everyoen there a happy Hannukah. see what happens.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.

Zarove, they said Happy Hanukkah back.

You'd be amazed at the amount of people who are blessed that someone, not even of their faith has bothered to wish them a blessed holy season.

Again, worry about either the topic of the original question, or mind that you bother spelling your posts better. (meaning sans extra/or less constanants/vowels) instead of trying to be Miss Holiday Etiquette. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effort to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (HappyChannukah@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.

im not a Miss anything. And which Jewish board did you post on? Can we see it?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

Merry Christmas and Happy Mandate!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 19, 2004.

well, I suppose it was no Jewish Board for Dorian... and, quoiet as I suspected, sicne most Jews I know, and I know a few, woidl look at you funny for wishing peopel a Happy hannukah since its over with.

And, as noted on another thread now, this is not the type pf board where one cares for "All other faitsh". its a catholci refuge, not a Unifaith mesage baord...

relaly false enlightenment for politicla show has gotten into some peopels style well too often these days...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.

ZAROVE,

You are special. You have at least one admirer in me.

God bless you.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 22, 2004.