Should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

[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 dinosaurs lived during the time of the authors of the Bible then, eh?

 

[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.

Never said I was a dude.

Never said you were a chick, either, but being a time waster isn't gender specific, so the meaning of the post remains the same.

 

[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 dinosaurs lived during the time of the authors of the Bible then, eh?

And still do today.

 

[Joy4Uall]

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.

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?

....... cruel acts were never commanded by God, nor conducted by God. .......

1. So god killing all the innocent first-born sons (often innocent children) of Egypt was not cruel, in your opinion?
2. I would have, if I was into killing, killed the guilty party - Pharaoh - instead, and not the innocent children who did nothing wrong. Can you join me in rising to that above-god level of morality, Pumpkin?

 

[Joy4Uall]

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.

So they should call the beasts in the Jurassic park movies "dragons"??

 

[Tilly]

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.

I wouldn't wish to try doing anything in a Muslim nation. And what does that have to do with the Bible?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

.......

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 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?

....... cruel acts were never commanded by God, nor conducted by God. .......

1. So god killing all the innocent first-born sons (often innocent children) of Egypt was not cruel, in your opinion?
2. I would have, if I was into killing, killed the guilty party - Pharaoh - instead, and not the innocent children who did nothing wrong. Can you join me in rising to that above-god level of morality, Pumpkin?

Egypt was the guilty party, God created the people in the first place, and the way Egypt raised their people was to be just as immoral as they were. Not only that, but you're assuming the firstborn were all children, when ages aren't given. When they left Egypt, they were specifically told not to carry on Egypt's traditions.

Your ego must be planet-sized to think you're more moral than the creator of the universe. That's just pathetic.

 

[Joy4Uall]

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.

I wouldn't wish to try doing anything in a Muslim nation. And what does that have to do with the Bible?

Big picture it's good that we show that the Bible and Qur'an are quite similar (hatred of gays, treatment of women, etc.) - some people think that they are not quite similar.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

So they should call the beasts in the Jurassic park movies "dragons"??

Sure.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

I wouldn't wish to try doing anything in a Muslim nation. And what does that have to do with the Bible?

Big picture it's good that we show that the Bible and Qur'an are quite similar (hatred of gays, treatment of women, etc.) - some people think that they are not quite similar.

There are similarities and massive differences.