Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years

[VTA]

I couldn't even read the rest of this shit. Just utterly sick.

My fear is, that the more you and society at large, hears and reads about this shit so much that the result is to become desensitized to it, and eventually it becomes "normal"; and that is clearly their aim.

Bingo.

 

[junk]

Actually this is a linear discussion and context matters. I qualified it in an earlier post with All groups could use a slap to the head, just for segregating themselves along specious cultural lines.

Ugh, your backtracking gets annoying at times. Make a definitive statement and then back out of it when someone can use your own statement against you.

Instead of an another endless debate, I'll just assume you believe one of the following:

1) You believe the only people in groups, including religious groups, are insecure people trying to validate themselves.
2) You believe that some people in groups, including religious groups, are insecure people trying to validate themselves. I'd assume the some that aren't happen to align with your particular belief system. I think there is a word for that.....we've discussed it before and I see a trend
3) You made an extremely ignorant statement and are trying to back out of it and save face.

 

[VTA]

Assume what you want junker, it doesn't matter to me. You've already shown that clear English baffles you so I really can't be all that concerned what you think.

 

[junk]

There are people that are generally good parents and there are some that are generally bad parents. Same goes for people in general. I certainly don't think it has any bearing on your sexual orientation, race, gender, belief system, etc.

You can certainly find no shortage of stories of child abuse from any other demographic.

The system should screen prospective adoptive parents and if they prove they can provide a stable, loving home environment, there is no reason anyone should be barred from the adoption process. Unfortunately, the system failed this child horribly. Not the first, nor unfortunately, the last I'm sure.

It isn't always a bad thing. Zach Wahls is one prominent example.

 

[junk]

Assume what you want junker, it doesn't matter to me. You've already shown that clear English baffles you so I really can't be all that concerned what you think.

I apparently hit pretty close to the mark.

 

[peplaw06]

Why do you believe it is a sin?

I'd wager the same reason you do.

 

[VTA]

I'd wager the same reason you do.

I have kept faith out of it largely, but if we're going to use faith as our reason, we really can't ignore God's entire view of the thing, especially including homosexuality. It's no mere sin, in fact it's not called a sin, but when He mentions it He mentions it in the same way He does dietary restrictions: an abomination. A cause of illness and death. He has strong feelings against it and it caused His direct intervention into societies to put an end to it. So now, if you believe in God, then you understand the problem.

And yes we all do discriminate. We discriminate who we let in our homes, who allow around our families and we discriminate who we ourselves socialize with. Why do you think it's any different when considering who is fit for something as important getting their hands on a child? Would you champion a prostitute who is in fact also a sinner, adopting kids? Meth addicts, dishonest and lazy people?

 

[VTA]

I apparently hit pretty close to the mark.

Nah I just wish to avoid another long session of repeating myself to you.

 

[peplaw06]

I have kept faith out of it largely, but if we're going to use faith as our reason, we really can't ignore God's entire view of the thing, especially including homosexuality. It's no mere sin, in fact it's not called a sin, but when He mentions it He mentions it in the same way He does dietary restrictions: an abomination. A cause of illness and death. He has strong feelings against it and it caused His direct intervention into societies to put an end to it. So now, if you believe in God, then you understand the problem.

And yes we all do discriminate. We discriminate who we let in our homes, who allow around our families and we discriminate who we ourselves socialize with. Why do you think it's any different when considering who is fit for something as important getting their hands on a child? Would you champion a prostitute who is in fact also a sinner, adopting kids? Meth addicts, dishonest and lazy people?

It's clear faith has something to do with your tone in this discussion. You may not have come out and said it, but it's not being left out. There is no sin that is greater than another. Sin is in and of itself an abomination. "For the wages of SIN is death..." That's all sin. Not just homosexuality, not just prostitution, not just laziness.

I'm not denying faith has an impact on my views in this discussion. But I recognize there's a distinction between a meth addict and a homosexual. A meth addict by definition is significantly impairing the child's physical health or emotional well-being, just the same as a person who is actively abusing a child, whether physically, sexually, emotionally, or verbally. But a homosexual parent is not, by definition, going to impair the child, despite your apparent protestations that all homosexuals are likely to sexually abuse little boys. Your logic would necessarily dictate that a female homosexual couple should not adopt little girls. It's ridiculous. I know you're a smart guy, but you're way off base here.

All people who adopt kids are sinners. Thieves, liars, the lazy, adulterers... all are apparently okay with you for adoption. All of them also have the same risk associated with them... they could all negatively impact the child. Would you also campaign for all catholics to be denied the opportunity to adopt children? Of course you wouldn't.

 

[VTA]

I'd have to disagree with you on the equality of sin. I know where people generally get the idea, but God shows Himself to feel otherwise. God patiently withholds action through quite a great amount of sin and He never characterized any other sin in quite the same way as He did homosexuality. That distinction is important. In the two major mentions of it He calls it the cause of death and a form of judgement. Adultery itself won't lead to death, nether will lying, stealing, pride and covetousness. But the unchecked societal abandonment into those things will lead to God's abandonment of that society and what is consequently that judgment.

Read Ezekiel ch16:49. He lays out the sins that lead to His abandoning of a society. Then read Romans 1 where the stages of societal abandonment are laid out.

Societal acceptance of degenerative behavior is the last stage and consequently a judgment and things just get a whole lot worse. He leaves that culture to their sin and it's consequences.

And we're all sinners, whether we adopt or procreate, but that's not the point. We're not trying to fashion a lifestyle centered around our sins and transgressions. We're not demanding rights according to them and the imposition of others acceptance of them as normal. This s the difference. If you believe in God, you believe in God and take His admonitions lock, stock and barrel. There is no al a Carte faith with God, He means everything He says.

Thanks for the compliment, but from a theological standpoint, I am firmly on base and from the biological standpoint as well. It's a biological disaster that no one of prominence is allowed to talk rationally about. God didn't create man to engage in sex with each other, despite the lies of people who wished they believed such things.These are the vain philosophies Paul is talking about it. Put it all together and it al adds p, this will not in any way end in what people laughable want to call a 'progressive' society.

 

[CobraKai]

You said in the post I quoted that the fact that children are sexually abused in other instances doesn't negate the "existence of a bad precedence"? You're saying that two gay men should never be allowed to adopt a male child. That's ridiculous. One instance of a gay male couple abusing a male child doesn't mean it's always going to happen, or that it's gong to happen a percentage of the time.

I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I'm not going to try to prevent sinners from adopting male children, because that would mean no male children could ever get adopted. And if the children aren't adopted, that's a decidedly higher risk for the types of things we're discussing here. Would you rather the child be sold into slavery?

So no, I'm not ready to declare that two gay men adopting a male child is a horrible thing, especially compared to the alternatives. You can claim it's social or cultural conditioning all you want. I'll call it what it is... critical thinking and refusal to fall into that trap of using the bible to make humans seem subhuman.

I want to kiss you on the mouth for being so reasonable.

Johnny Bible-Thumper up there needs a lesson on love. Pharisees always try to put the letter of the law first. Insecurity, I suspect.

 

[VTA]

:thumbsup

Maybe you can work on providing such a lesson?

 

[CobraKai]

Matthew 7:6

 

[VTA]

Matthew 7:6

Very good.

You know many people who agree with you on this particular issue of homosexuality would use the earlier part of that chapter in direct contrast to your use of that verse.