quote:I believe that the racial discrimination you refer to in my church was not wrong at the time.
Um...this has got to be the most intellectually challenging statement I've ever heard a person of faith make. Essentially, you are saying that God turned off the racial discrimination command at just the right moment. Before that, it was good and after that bad. And all of this happened exactly as God wanted it. Right?
If that's really the case, then you'll pardon me if I just go on living my life waiting for God to catch up to my sense of justice. He seems to be lagging again.
Or, should I say, I'll just go along knowing what's right and figure that some future religious leaders will figure it out, eventually...when it no longer matters what the heck they think or say.
posted
popatr, How can you sit there and attempt to justify one of the most horrendous historical atrocities of all time by saying it was God's will? I hate when people hide behind their religon.
It's just baffling that you would even say something like that. I'm at a loss for words. Your opinions aren't even worth the effort of rebuttal, they're so obviously wrong.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
popatr, do you consider yourself a leader, or a potential leader in your church or in your community?
Do you think that you have free will? If so, do you think that it is something you are expected to exercise?
By the way, is popatr's a common attitude among LDS members? This is the first time I've ever encountered it, and I just have to wonder if maybe someone just hasn't straightened out this person's theological understanding yet, or if this is the LDS method of understanding changing beliefs over the ages.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would certainly hope that it's not a common opinion in any church. If it is, then that means that there are people out there who believe that a justification for brutal discrimination is even possible. If you do believe this, then make no mistake, you are a racist.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we talking about the same thing here? Hmm, maybe we are... but "one of the most horrendous historical atrocities of all time" seems to be taking it a bit far, IMO.
But no... hiding is when you take a historical fact and don't let it affect your faith--either to become part of your faith or to shatter it. I think it's the same with the polygamy issue, too.
But let me assure you that I really have no racism on the topic. Theoretically, it could have been me that was denied the priesthood at the time, while the blacks were gifted with it. Just whatever God says on the issue.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Regarding the S&M, I think the domineering - submissive behavior inherent in it is pretty unhealthy, especially when it starts becoming sadist and masochist. I think that in the intimate setting of family, it would be pretty hard for those kinds of attitudes not to run over into other ways that people express relationships, and so I probably wouldn't recommend them as parents.
The domineering - submissive behavior is a pretty vague definition. I think that in a healthy sexual relationship sometimes one partner may be more active than the other, and other times it reverses. And sometimes people get a little, um, hyper and creative but there is no pleasure got from the giving or receiving of pain.
If the S&M couple are in the habit of trading off roles... but there is that whole pain thing involved that makes me think they wouldn't make good parents. I mean, if you are turned on by getting whipped, what kind of punishment will you think is acceptable for a child?
How does a person even come to like something like that?
Back to the other discussion: I think long term studies following children raised by homosexual and heterosexual couples would be a very good course of action. I think there could be preliminary studies just by evaluating those few adults who've been raised by homosexual couples. I'm not sure we could count people who were raised by homosexuals who later came out, because that coming out usually involves the homosexual leaving and destroys the family unit. (obviously harmful, but not a lot more so than a heterosexual affair).
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are we talking about the same thing here? Hmm, maybe we are... but "one of the most horrendous historical atrocities of all time" seems to be taking it a bit far, IMO.
I think racism of any kind is a horrible blotch on the paper that is our history.
But even worse is your attempt to justify racism as God's will.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, I can sort of see how you might arrive at that opinion. After all, you church has people who are called prophets and thus speak God's word to his church.
So, if they say something different now than they did 50 years ago, it must be because God has decided it's time for a change.
See, to me, something like that would serve as proof of a different sort. It would show the impermanence of God's decisions. Maybe it'd be hubris on my part to question God's timing, and all. But I just couldn't help it. I mean, I'd think of all the wonderful black people who suffered waiting for him to alert the prophet to the new decree. Couldn't He have done it 5 years sooner and made a difference in some lives? And if 5 years sooner, why not 50 years sooner? Why back racism at all if you know eventually you're going to come out and say it is wrong?
And that just seems odd to me. I mean isn't the point of God's word that it can be relied on for all time? If he's going to go changing His mind, maybe we should just ignore Him until He figures out what he really wants and then He can just clue us in to the final decision, whatever it is.
Mind you, I like a God who changes, personally. But I have a hard time when I can't talk to Him directly about it. See, there's this prophet guy. And he dies and another prophet guy takes his place, and so on and so on. Well, I think those are just guys. Very holy guys to be sure. But still, just guys. And they talk to God about as often as I do. Or rather, God talks to them about as often as He talks to me. And He's telling me different things than He seems to be telling them.
And since I know that what God is telling me is the REAL TRUTH, then they must be liars or deluded.
Right?
Or, suppose I grant that your source of divine instruction is better than mine. Naturally, I figure I should follow yours, right? But then I realize that yours is coming up with things that aren't permanent. And so really I should just wait until your source agrees with mine.
Or, we could just say it's all man's opinion on things and what we really ought to do is figure it out for ourselves.
And in that context, if you want to bring scripture to bear, be my guest. I might decide that you (or your leaders) have misread the scripture, but what the heck, it's not like we can prove or disprove any of it.
So, once again, it's a bloody dead end.
And the people who suffer aren't the ones who are interpreting God's rules for the rest of us.
Which I think is suspicious in and of itself.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fitz, If you are trying to keep me from putting this blot on God's account because you believe in Him--then give it up.
Racial discrimination is a religious fact. At the time of Israel, they were God's chosen people--and even amongst them, only the levites could hold the priesthood. And indeed, violence approved by God is not only a theoretical possibility but historical fact. (For those who take scripture seriously.) Israel wiped out some nations at God's instruction.
And Jesus, when He came, came to israel. The gospel was not really offered to any gentiles until after Christ died and instructions were given to the apostles.
But of course, if you don't believe in God, none of that matters.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
There, I fixed that for you. I have seen to many liberal/progressive Christians with healthy respect and study of the Bible to denigrate them by saying they haven't taken the Bible seriously.
posted
You know, protestations to the contrary, I find the Old and New Testaments to be completely different scriptures and irreconciable except by the most tortured paths of human intellect.
Given that, I worry that so many Christian sects insist on keeping the Old Testament as part of their teachings, rather than just honoring it as part of a long-dead heritage.
It would seem that much nastiness was done in God's name by the Israelites. It could mean that God was on their side. Or it could mean that they survived to write the history.
No offense to our Jewish members here, by the way. I'm not much on the divine origins of ANY scripture, so please don't feel singled out.
I know that it often mystifies Jewish scholars when they hear the kinds of things that Christians do to their scriptures in order to make sense of a combined OT & NT tradition.
Basically, most Christians have to assert that they know more about Jewish scripture than the Jews do. And I find that claim to be entirely preposterous.
quote:And I want to say that yes, sometimes even prophets are just plain wrong.
But you're sure they are right now. Is that it?
Or are you saying you have to follow them even if they are wrong?
By the way, thanks! I'm trying not to be nasty because I really want to understand this position. I've never had this spelled out so clearly before. I don't like your position. In fact I hate it with ever fiber of my being. But I thank you for explaining it to me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you are trying to keep me from putting this blot on God's account because you believe in Him--then give it up.
We don't believe in the same God. I'm not trying to keep you from doing anything. I acknowledge the fact that you use your interpretation of God to justify insanity. So go ahead and put a "blot on God's account" if that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable with past atrocities.
quote: Racial discrimination is a religious fact.
I agree, in the sense that many instances of racial discrimination have marred religious history. I sincerely hope that you aren't saying that you use your scriptures as a guideline for the substantiation of current, and even recent cases of racial discrimination.
I don't want it to seem that I don't take seriously the scriptures you believe in. I respect your right to believe whatever you wish, but I most definitely do not agree with what you've been saying in regards to racism.
I think it's a flimsy acquital of past injustices when one simply places the burden on God's shoulders.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anka, thanks for that link. It also served to remind me that the LDS was specifically anti-slavery from the get-go. And that's a good thing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was from a few pages back, but i just had to address it.
quote: How well can the lesbian mothers council their daughter on how to behave around men? On how to choose a good man?
I think two lesbians in a loving marriage should be very able to council their daughter on how to choose a good *person.* You're suggesting that a woman needs to be able to understand "heterosexual" love in order to advise their children? How bout just showing them what qualities are to be found in a "good" person?
Incidentally, no one told me how to choose a "good man." or "counciled" me on how to behave around the opposite sex. No one. And i came from a very happy, supportive home.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then you had that modelled and were able to deduce it for yourself. My own parents talked to me about it and gave me a great example.
But it isn't always so simple. Men react different to sex than women do. I suspect homosexual men are more similar to other men than they are to women, in that regard. The same with lesbian women. So how is a girl child to see, on a day to day basis, what a good man is supposed to be for his wife and children? You want to say 'person', but men and women are different. We react differently to relationships and sex.
One interesting thing would be to study the actual incidence of long term homosexual relationships. Even though not recognized legally, many can still make vows to each other in a religious setting, such as the Unitarian church. How long do these relationships last? What are the dynamics of a long term homosexual union? Is this just a touching stone for rights, or is it something that every homosexual wants to eventually do?
It is very early morning and I've woken up with insomnia. Maybe I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to relate my experience with friends. I will gladly admit that all I have is anectodal evidence, hence my great desire for real studies to be done. But of the two long term homosexual unions I'm aware of, both lesbian, one was extremely unhealthy with one party staying only because the other threatened suicide if she left. The other is definately a co-dependent relationship, with A being extremely dependent on B, and B needing to be needed and indispensible. B left her husband and children (and her church) either just before or in order to be in that relationship, though she continued to maintain close contact with her children. They have their balance now. They are kind people, and being writers they are part of that community that I yearned for and have now found. They are friends. I'm glad they've found whatever they could, but I wouldn't want to have the kind of relationship they do.
The other homosexual unions I'm aware of are celebrities: Ellen and Anne Heche. Anne seemed to have a nervous breakdown when they broke up. Ian Mckellen had a boy toy with him at the Grammies once. I would have called his partner a boy toy if Ian had been an old woman too. If I'd seen Ian with an older man, I would have not lost the respect for him I did on that night.
There is that couple that fostered kids who were otherwise unadoptable. That was a good thing, but is this the actual norm in homosexual unions? And I honestly have no idea as to the dimensions of their actual relationship.
I wonder if we wouldn't find the incidence of lifetime homosexual unions more prevelant in women than in men?
That is all I know, folks. That is why I want studies. Are most homosexual encounters lifetime, equal partnering relationships? Would they really become so if marriage were suddenly legal? Why would that make a difference (except for things like insurance and inheritance) when there are several churches that will perform ceremonies? Are there homosexuals who believe in no sex before marriage? Can I have more information, please?
And here is a second question: if we can have homosexual marriage, why not polygamy between consenting adults who all love each other?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
One, it substantiates my point that children raised in homosexual households do have differences in the sexual development than those raised with heterosexual parents. Second, it speaks of what I'm having a problem with: the lack of unbiased information about homosexual psychology, relationships, and parenting.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know, protestations to the contrary, I find the Old and New Testaments to be completely different scriptures and irreconciable except by the most tortured paths of human intellect.
Given that, I worry that so many Christian sects insist on keeping the Old Testament as part of their teachings, rather than just honoring it as part of a long-dead heritage.
This is something I struggle with just about every day with my faith. I believe that the New Testament is the more important and try to look at the Old Testament as the historical background and reasoning for the NT.
Personally, if I find a conflict or an issue I can't get myself right on, I look to the New Testament.
And if I've read it correctly, folks taking their law from the Old Testament were the ones who forced Christ up onto that cross (with the help of the Romans).
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if I've read it correctly, folks taking their law from the Old Testament were the ones who forced Christ up onto that cross (with the help of the Romans).
Yeah, but I don't think you can blame the Scripture for that, necessarily. I think the people who did it wanted to do it, and they found an excuse in Scripture.
Much as people do today with ANY Scripture.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But of the two long term homosexual unions I'm aware of, both lesbian, one was extremely unhealthy with one party staying only because the other threatened suicide if she left. The other is definately a co-dependent relationship, with A being extremely dependent on B, and B needing to be needed and indispensible.
Sadly, that also describes a great many heterosexual marriages I personally know of.
quote:The other homosexual unions I'm aware of are celebrities: Ellen and Anne Heche. Anne seemed to have a nervous breakdown when they broke up. Ian Mckellen had a boy toy with him at the Grammies once.
And again, sadly, celebrity marriages are not known for their serenity and longevity.
I'm not disputing the suggestion that homosexual unions may be more difficult to maintain, for I simply don't know. There is also no way of knowing whether the availablility of a socially-approved structure would encourage more commitment and less promiscuity between homosexuals. But I can't see where it would hurt, either.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think gay people are just as screwed up as straight people, on average. No-one has a monopoly on emotional baggage. The main thing in a long-lasting relationship is finding someone whose personal quirks and "baggage" you can tolerate. Anything above that is icing on the cake if all we're talking about is longevity as the sole criterion of success.
Now, if you want to talk about other criteria, and I think we should since longevity is one of those things you can only measure at the end, I would submit that homosexual relationships often have an important leg up on heterosexual ones. That is there's none of the usual tension of people raised differently as the two sexes are having to come to terms with each other.
Think of it. Women, you can communicate better with your girl friends than you can with your husband on a variety of important subjects. Right? Men can communicate more effectively with their guy friends on a wide variety of subjects. It just seems like there'd be less tension in a homosexual relationship on that score.
I think the biggest worry for people who are against homosexual marriage is that it might turn out that their marriages last longer than anyone elses!!!
That really might destroy the fabric of traditional marriage in America. We'd all have to go out and get gay marriage counselors!
And I'm not buffing up for anyone! So forget it!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think the biggest worry for people who are against homosexual marriage is that it might turn out that their marriages last longer than anyone elses!"
It does always amuse me that my uncle Bob has been with his partner for over 22 years, which beats the marriage record of any of his siblings by 7 years (and doubles most of them.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The other is definately a co-dependent relationship, with A being extremely dependent on B, and B needing to be needed and indispensible.
Also the case with my parents, now divorced. I had a happy, supportive childhood, but *not* because my parents were *anywhere* near the model for a perfect couple. If i learned what a "good" man should be from *anywhere* it was from books and, yes, movies. And when I began actually searching for a "good" man, to date, I searched for someone with similar interests to mine, who I admired and respected, who I was always excited and pleased to be around. Not someone who would one day be a good father and husband.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed their resolution on ceremonies for same-sex unions.
FYI:
quote:Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 74th General Convention affirms the following:
That our life together as a community of faith is grounded in the saving work of Jesus Christ and expressed in the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: Holy Scripture, the historic Creeds of the Church, the two dominical sacraments, and the historic episcopate.
That we reaffirm Resolution A069 of the 65th General Convention (1976) that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church”.
That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that “We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”, and that such relationships exist throughout the church.
That, we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.
That we commit ourselves, and call our church, in the spirit of Resolution A104 of the 70th General Convention (1991), to continued prayer, study, and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons, to include the compilation and development by a special commission organized and appointed by the Presiding Bishop of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.
That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion and, among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with the gay men and lesbians among us.
That it is a matter of faith that our Lord longs for our unity as his disciples, and for us this entails living within the boundaries of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. We believe this discipline expresses faithfulness to our polity and that it will facilitate the conversation we seek not only in The Episcopal Church, but also in the wider Anglican Communion and beyond.
******
Bob, I’m going to try to write up something on the OT/NT point you brought up. I strongly disagree with you, but I want to take the time to write something coherent. (It might take a while )
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think the reconciliation is beautiful, and not all that twisted. First, our book of moses links the animal sacrifices to the sacrifice of Jesus in a way that I like.
And second, the jews had been looking for a messiah, but one that would release them from armys etc instead of sin. This leads right into the new testament.
Third--Jesus, being a jew himself and therefore with a jew's understanding of their scriptures--he himself quoted scriptures and tried to show how they pointed to him. (This just made the bigwigs mad.) So I think that the reconciliation of Old and New Testament is a necessity, not just a good idea; because Jesus himself was doing it.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can completely understand how some would feel more comfortable with hetero parents over gay parents. But I pose this question? You have a wonderful, happy childhood, grow to adulthood and start a family of your own. Your mother for example passes away and your dad comes out of the closet and tells you he is gay. Would you love him any less? Would all of your childhood memories be tainted by this news? Or could you find it in your heart to understand and remember that your dad was terrific no matter what his sexual preference?
I can imagine there are many gay men who are married, just as there are priests and ministers that are gay as well. Unfortunately, the conservative masses will not stand for gay adoptive parents any time soon. For me, that is a moot argument. People have not changed much in the last two or three hundred years, and these masses that are afraid of gay parents are the same ones that were burning witches at the stake or stoning sinners in the town square.
I admire the forward thinkers of Hatrack, but in reality, the popular opinion is overshadowing whatever good may come of this thread.
posted
Sigh. Alrightie. Lets see what I can possibly add.
- Referring to the Stacey/Biblarz research: They reviewed 21 studies from the last twenty years that have been done on children from lesbian families (there are more lesbian couples with children than gay men, for various reasons).
quote:Until Stacey and Biblarz embarked on their review, every previous scientific, sociological, or psychological examination of children raised in lesbian families focused on one question: were the children put at a disadvantage? The answer was always an overwhelming “no.”
Stacey/Biblarz agree, they firmly believe that children in lesbian families do NOT have a disadvantage.
quote:Stacey said nothing in their work justifies discrimination against gay families, or alters her conviction that gays and lesbians can be excellent parents raising well-adjusted children. She worried, however, that some family court judges might use the findings to reinforce decisions against gay parenting.
What they found was simply that there were differences. And unsurprisingly so.
These differences are like the sort of differences you'd see if you looked at children who grew up in a church-attending household versus a household that does not attend church. Those kids whose parents went to church are more likely to go to church. Maybe those children whose parents didn't go to church are more likely to "try out other religions." Probably fewer children whose parents didn't go to church associate themselves with their parents religion as those whose parents went to church.
Differences based on association. But do the children from one set of parents suffer in comparison to the other set of parents? No, no, no.
Maybe you're scared of the sexual freedom or experimentation that, statistically, some of these children participate in. Well, you'd better stop me from adopting children in my straight marriage, because I'm just as open-minded.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well--ideally, yes. But this isn't an ideal world. It is almost universally accepted, though, that sex is a social problem on several levels.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Popatr, if I may ask without giving offense -- how many women have you dated thus far? How many have you slept with? What experience do you have with sex, the opposite sex, and homosexuality?
I have difficulty imagining anyone whose anus isn't puckered up tighter than a drum would seek to control other people's love lives -- unless, of course, that's your own version of S&M. Like being in control, do we?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think it sort of pointless to debate sexual issues with someone who was blissfully ignorant as to what the missionary position is...
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Simply not true? Teen pregnancy. STD's. Rape.
Healthy attitudes about sex ARE important. <<
I would argue that the attitudes, not the sex, are the problems.
And "healthy attitude" does not in any way imply "no sex before marriage, and even then only with people of the other gender."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw...I look forward to your reply. You always have so much to offer on these issues that I come away learning something new every time!!!
popatr...I have read the OT looking specifically for things that point to Jesus as the messiah. I think a believer can and will find them. I think a skeptic will question every single one of them even without reference to the problem of the gospels being written well after Jesus' death and probably containing any number of pious insertions specifically there to point to fulfillment of prior scriptures.
I wasn't even getting into that, though. What mostly bothers me is that the picture of God drawn from the OT and the NT seem so radically different to me. For one thing, God in the OT is actively involved in geopolitics. He smites foes, brings low various rulers, heck, he micromanages his creation.
The NT God isn't like that at all. He stops exhorting us to kill our enemies to wipe out entire races of people from the earth. He apparently stops caring about geneology, but I suppose you could say that this change is due to His Son's pedigree being all that mattered. Rather than the fact that the royal family had become a puppet to Rome and really no longer mattered.
I know that Jesus talked about the new covenant superceding the old Mosaic law. But if that's the case, then doesn't that ipso-facto render irrelevant major sections of the OT? I mean why should anyone study the laws laid out in Exodus and Leviticus if they are superceded by God's new commands to us?
And if that's the case, shouldn't we drop the 10 commandments as readily as we dropped the prohibition against shellfish or the requirement to avoid menstruating women?
It's all too confusing, really.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing is, teen preganancy has been going down... And started to PRECISELY when sex ed started to be a common thing in schools (late-80s, early-90s).
STDs, up until the last 3-5 years, also fell drastically.
Rape, by most accounts, is down (at least violent crime, which includes rape, is down).
So it may have been a problem, but despite your idea of restricting liberty and knowledge, it seems education has done a great deal to lower the nasty side effects that can occur with sex. I say education, because while the rates were going up in the 60s and 70s, I believe, the rates have all come down, despite an ever increasing population.
posted
As someone who does know what the missionary position is, I'm going to back up poptr. I think it is very disingenous of you folks to disregard his arguments simply because he has not experienced sex. In our culture and religion, that is a very desirable trait, one that he has kept despite media and social pressure to the contrary. This isn't a sign of naivety, it is a sign of strength. I applaud him for it.
As someone who believes that one should not have sex until they get married, being more sexually adventurous as a teen is NOT neutral. It is a disadvantage. Our teachings are that sex is a wonderful thing, in the proper time and place. My experience has born that out.
Our problems with homosexuality do not stem from the fact that people have same sex attraction, so if my father did happen to come out and say he was gay, I would probably respect him even more, because he acted righteously under a heavier burden than I'd known about. Unless he decided that now he was free to act it out. Then I would be very disappointed and hurt, because he would have left the path of righteousness that he taught me. Either way, I would still love him the same.
It is not people who are homosexual who can't adopt children, but homosexual couples.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
