Should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

What you're calling a moral stand is attacking people for not conforming to your way of thinking. The people that are blowing themselves up on 'non-believers' aren't representatives of Muslims in the world.

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

I asked you to condemn BEATING women, and you couldn't even do that? Please take a hard look at yourself in the mirror. My "way of thinking", is, uh, that women should not be BEATEN!

Actually, it says striking, and it lists it strictly as a last resort. You lack comprehension of the English language, even when cherry-picking verses to attack a religion that this thread isn't about. You've actually derailed your thread so hard, we haven't been on the same subject for at least 10 pages, and we're not even discussing the same religion were were originally attacking, all in your panic to try to find something, anything to attack me with.

 

[Tilly]

Sure

They can love children the same as heterosexuals

The Bible doesn't agree with you - so who is wrong, you or god/Bible?

Where does the Bible say gays can't adopt children???

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's not about works. .....

But that would be more fair, more equitable, more just...rather than just being about which unproven invisible dead guy a person happens to "believe" in.

Actually, you've been speaking against the Old Testament for 24 pages, and now you suddenly support it? The Old Testament WAS based on works. Gentiles couldn't get into Heaven because it was based on works, so God sent Jesus to make it a choice. You can believe and live with God forever, or don't, and separate yourself forever. God made is significantly easier to make that choice.

Or, in your own words, the Old Testament was not "fair". That's why we have the New Testament.

Works is fairer than just grace/believing. So that would mean the OT was fairer than the NT, to the degree that your assumption is true.

It's literally impossible for humans to be perfect, the standards to stand before God were too high because they were based on works. People are immoral trash, for the most part, which is why we needed the new Testament. Considering the number of people that had been smote, in the flood, and Sodom and Gammorah, the people that were wiped out after Exodus, and the way things are today, it's pretty clear that the New Testament is far "Fairer".

No, that just means that the god of the OT was more BARBARIC - so Christians should consider not having the OT in their Bible. Unless of course they can't think for themselves.

The Bible is a piece of history, thus omitting things would actually be totally pointless and counter productive. God in the old Testament punished sinners, you found it barbaric that he killed murderers and rapists in Sodom and Gammorah, which is part of the reason it's absolutely hilarious that you're trying to hold some sort of moral high ground. Are you suggesting that he should have allowed them to kill and rape more people? I think you're advocating rape.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, .......

I'm sure you can't condemn Allah for saying to cut off people's hands and feet (Q5:33)....can you?

So, because you couldn't find any atrocities encouraged in the Bible, you're searching the Quran? That's pretty sad.

Here are a whopping 1321 instances of cruelty and violence in the Bible - many of them approved by the god and/or heroes of the Bible: Cruelty and Violence

Actually, you're grouping ALL acts of violence together to artificially inflate the number of things you don't agree with. I also already mentioned earlier that "Heroes" were human, and not everything they did was approved by God. Not only that, but contained within this list are things such as the flood, which God sent because mankind was barbaric, murdering and stealing from each other. For example, despite Cain killing ONE person, God spared him. The atrocities mankind was committing to warrant being wiped out would have to have been far worse.

Not only that, but later, when he wipes out Sodom and Gammorah, God agrees to spare them on behalf of ONE righteous person. The fact that he didn't goes to show that there wasn't a single person living in either location that wasn't a rapist or murderer.

Getting more and more feeling that you are okay with rape and murder, considering you're calling the removal of such people acts of cruelty.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?

If the creator of the universe wants him to, I'm gonna say yes.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

.......

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

That's not true.

I'm sure you've read just as much of the Quran as the Bible. That being 0 pages, and some opinion pieces from other militant atheists who also haven't read them.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

This statement is as true as the statement "2+2=4":
If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if he did that, Pumpkin?

You clearly didn't read what I said. Slavery was voluntary. They did it to pay their debts.

I'd also like to point out that only Christians listened to Jesus. Even if he wanted to prevent people from paying their debts through voluntarily becoming slaves, it wouldn't have abolished slavery.

So, hypothetically, if I could point out slaves that were CAPTURED, non-voluntary, by heroes in the Bible, you'd condemn the Bible for having those enslavers be heroes, correct? Again, I said hypothetically - I'm trying to separate out "what does it actually say" from YOUR MORAL JUDGMENT. What say you?

You're, again, trying to make 'not condemning' the same as encouraging because you have no ground to stand on. Every person in the Bible, whether they were chosen for God's will, or simply present during any of the passages, had sinned. Simply because you refer to one or more as a "Biblical Hero" doesn't mean you can hold them over the heads of Christians as a model Christian.

I'm asking you to condemn the people in the Bible that committed cruel acts....can you do that?

 

[Joy4Uall]

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?

If the creator of the universe wants him to, I'm gonna say yes.

Then you'll believe anything.

 

[Tilly]

Why are you trying to derail your own thread with an off topic subject? ....

1. You proved that you think gay parents are worse than pedophilia, or you likely would have answered it.
2. I was trying to show that when it comes to sexual judgments you don't have a leg to stand on. I proved that.

Have a great night.

All you have proven is that you want kids subjected to a homosexual lifestyle. You are sick.

I want fair treatment of gays - we need to move beyond the hatred that the Bible/Quran teach towards innocent people - because I care about people too much.

But you don't care about fair unmolested treatment of children. You're just like sick libs everywhere. All you care about are sick freaks getting children.

I want kids to have loving parents, not be orphans. Just because people who lived 2000 years ago taught hatred for gays doesn't mean that we should embrace that hatred today. Let's find our love, find our compassion. I know we can do that.

Gays can and do adopt children. Who is stopping them?

 

[Boss]

My question is: should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

I'm sensing a lot of Biblically-inspired hatred of gays on this forum, but I'm hoping that people of compassion and reason will rise to the occasion and reply "yes, they should be allowed to adopt kids!"

Maybe my hope in humanity is misplaced.

I don't think so, and that's not a "biblical-inspired" thing, it's pragmatic. A child needs two parents, a mother and father. Not a single parent, not a same sex couple and certainly not someone with a mental illness who is confused about their gender. Studies and statistics support this across the board.

Your hopes for humanity should be that we somehow find our way back to the importance of traditional families and abandon this stupid "politically correct" nonsense we've embarked upon before it destroys the very fabric of our civil society.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?

If the creator of the universe wants him to, I'm gonna say yes.

How do you discern the dragons in the Bible from the dragons in Lord of The Rings, the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Game of Thrones?

 

[Joy4Uall]

1. You proved that you think gay parents are worse than pedophilia, or you likely would have answered it.
2. I was trying to show that when it comes to sexual judgments you don't have a leg to stand on. I proved that.

Have a great night.

All you have proven is that you want kids subjected to a homosexual lifestyle. You are sick.

I want fair treatment of gays - we need to move beyond the hatred that the Bible/Quran teach towards innocent people - because I care about people too much.

But you don't care about fair unmolested treatment of children. You're just like sick libs everywhere. All you care about are sick freaks getting children.

I want kids to have loving parents, not be orphans. Just because people who lived 2000 years ago taught hatred for gays doesn't mean that we should embrace that hatred today. Let's find our love, find our compassion. I know we can do that.

Gays can and do adopt children. Who is stopping them?

People who believe that god is right in hating gays in the Bible, that's who - they want to pass laws that discriminate against gay parents adopting.

 

[Joy4Uall]

1. You proved that you think gay parents are worse than pedophilia, or you likely would have answered it.
2. I was trying to show that when it comes to sexual judgments you don't have a leg to stand on. I proved that.

Have a great night.

All you have proven is that you want kids subjected to a homosexual lifestyle. You are sick.

I want fair treatment of gays - we need to move beyond the hatred that the Bible/Quran teach towards innocent people - because I care about people too much.

But you don't care about fair unmolested treatment of children. You're just like sick libs everywhere. All you care about are sick freaks getting children.

I want kids to have loving parents, not be orphans. Just because people who lived 2000 years ago taught hatred for gays doesn't mean that we should embrace that hatred today. Let's find our love, find our compassion. I know we can do that.

Gays can and do adopt children. Who is stopping them?

Try doing that in a Muslim nation.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

Pretty sure neither is out of the realm of possibility for an entity that created a universe and all therein.
......

Prove that of the 5000+ gods out there that YOUR PARTICULAR UNIQUE GOD is the one who created it all, and not one of the other 5000 gods.

I find it funny that because you've been countered so many times, you just keep moving goal posts. As a matter of fact, I already told you I don't care if you believe in God or not, I'm only here to counter your attacks on Christianity. Hell, you don't believe in any of the "5000+ gods out there",why would you care 'which' created it all? Hypothetically.

Tacit admission that YOUR PARTICULAR UNIQUE GOD can not be proven to be the one who created it all, and not one of the other 5000 gods. So keep in mind that those other 5000 gods are likely to be just as real as your particular unique god of the Bible is.
Have a great afternoon.

Actually, just pointing out that you're moving the goal posts. I don't care to allow you to move them AGAIN into a completely different subject. Personally, I don't care if you go to Hell, why would I want to prove my God exists to you?

On the other hand, you did just just say Gods are likely. Nice job.

 

[Joy4Uall]

My question is: should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

I'm sensing a lot of Biblically-inspired hatred of gays on this forum, but I'm hoping that people of compassion and reason will rise to the occasion and reply "yes, they should be allowed to adopt kids!"

Maybe my hope in humanity is misplaced.

I don't think so, and that's not a "biblical-inspired" thing, it's pragmatic. A child needs two parents, a mother and father. Not a single parent, not a same sex couple and certainly not someone with a mental illness who is confused about their gender. Studies and statistics support this across the board.

Your hopes for humanity should be that we somehow find our way back to the importance of traditional families and abandon this stupid "politically correct" nonsense we've embarked upon before it destroys the very fabric of our civil society.

Are you so homophobic and intolerant because the Bible says to kill gays, and that gays can't get into heaven (in Romans in the Bible), and that Jesus never spoke up for gay rights?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

No offense, but it seems that you can't rise to the ethical level of Scientific Humanists because you can't condemn a god (Allah) that told his minions to wage violent Jihad against non-believers. I'm 100% certain that you can't condemn Allah for in verse 4:34 saying to BEAT women, either. There is a better alternative, Pumpkin, to be able to make a moral stand like Scientific Humanists do - the world is better when people are willing to take a moral stand, mi amigo.

The Koran instructs men to beat their wives: Six translations of Qur'an 4:34

Have a great afternoon.

.......

Not only that, but you clearly haven't read the Quran.

That's not true.

I'm sure you've read just as much of the Quran as the Bible. That being 0 pages, and some opinion pieces from other militant atheists who also haven't read them.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

This statement is as true as the statement "2+2=4":
If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if he did that, Pumpkin?

You clearly didn't read what I said. Slavery was voluntary. They did it to pay their debts.

I'd also like to point out that only Christians listened to Jesus. Even if he wanted to prevent people from paying their debts through voluntarily becoming slaves, it wouldn't have abolished slavery.

So, hypothetically, if I could point out slaves that were CAPTURED, non-voluntary, by heroes in the Bible, you'd condemn the Bible for having those enslavers be heroes, correct? Again, I said hypothetically - I'm trying to separate out "what does it actually say" from YOUR MORAL JUDGMENT. What say you?

You're, again, trying to make 'not condemning' the same as encouraging because you have no ground to stand on. Every person in the Bible, whether they were chosen for God's will, or simply present during any of the passages, had sinned. Simply because you refer to one or more as a "Biblical Hero" doesn't mean you can hold them over the heads of Christians as a model Christian.

I'm asking you to condemn the people in the Bible that committed cruel acts....can you do that?

I condemn various people all the time from the Bible, on the other hand, cruel acts were never commanded by God, nor conducted by God. You're slow, so try reading that three or four times before replying.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

.....

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.
...

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?

If the creator of the universe wants him to, I'm gonna say yes.

How do you discern the dragons in the Bible from the dragons in Lord of The Rings, the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Game of Thrones?

People call them Dinosaurs today, and have since the word was invented in the 1900s.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

My question is: should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

I'm sensing a lot of Biblically-inspired hatred of gays on this forum, but I'm hoping that people of compassion and reason will rise to the occasion and reply "yes, they should be allowed to adopt kids!"

Maybe my hope in humanity is misplaced.

I don't think so, and that's not a "biblical-inspired" thing, it's pragmatic. A child needs two parents, a mother and father. Not a single parent, not a same sex couple and certainly not someone with a mental illness who is confused about their gender. Studies and statistics support this across the board.

Your hopes for humanity should be that we somehow find our way back to the importance of traditional families and abandon this stupid "politically correct" nonsense we've embarked upon before it destroys the very fabric of our civil society.

You shouldn't have come here, the guy is a time waster. He has derailed his own thread for 20 pages.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I think there is about as much truth to that as there is to the Biblical claim that a man can live inside a fish for 3 days, or walk on water.

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?

If the creator of the universe wants him to, I'm gonna say yes.

How do you discern the dragons in the Bible from the dragons in Lord of The Rings, the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Game of Thrones?

People call them Dinosaurs today, and have since the word was invented in the 1900s.

So then if your translation of the Bible says "dragons", and not "dinosaurs", you wish that it was more accurate and actually said "dinosaurs", right?

 

[Joy4Uall]

My question is: should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

I'm sensing a lot of Biblically-inspired hatred of gays on this forum, but I'm hoping that people of compassion and reason will rise to the occasion and reply "yes, they should be allowed to adopt kids!"

Maybe my hope in humanity is misplaced.

I don't think so, and that's not a "biblical-inspired" thing, it's pragmatic. A child needs two parents, a mother and father. Not a single parent, not a same sex couple and certainly not someone with a mental illness who is confused about their gender. Studies and statistics support this across the board.

Your hopes for humanity should be that we somehow find our way back to the importance of traditional families and abandon this stupid "politically correct" nonsense we've embarked upon before it destroys the very fabric of our civil society.

You shouldn't have come here, the guy is a time waster. He has derailed his own thread for 20 pages.

Never said I was a dude.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's because you selectively forget anything that doesn't suit your false narrative.

Can a man live inside a fish for 3 days or is science not actually real?

If the creator of the universe wants him to, I'm gonna say yes.

How do you discern the dragons in the Bible from the dragons in Lord of The Rings, the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Game of Thrones?

People call them Dinosaurs today, and have since the word was invented in the 1900s.

So then if your translation of the Bible says "dragons", and not "dinosaurs", you wish that it was more accurate and actually said "dinosaurs", right?

Why should it conform to a word invented long after the creatures were already named? Dragon is far more accurate.