# Marriage= 1 man & 1 woman



## Russdaddy (Feb 10, 2012)

Rick Santorum's view on marriage

Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.

A husband is a man who commits to a woman, to her and any children she may give him. He commits to his wife without any reservations, to share with her all his worldly goods and to exclude all others from this intimate communion of life.  From this vow of marriage comes a wonderful and unique good: any children their union creates will have a mom and a dad united in love, in one family.

That’s the special work of marriage in law – to connect things that otherwise fray and fragment: love, life, money, moms, and dads.

A man who does not seek to do this – who doesn’t choose to give himself to a woman and any children they may have together in this unique and special way – may well be a very good man and have wonderful other kinds of relationships, but he isn’t seeking to be a husband. We can’t redefine reality to accommodate politically fashionable wishes.  Words matter because they capture enduring and timeless truths about human nature and about the common good.


http://www.ricksantorum.com/oped/we-hold-these-truths


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 10, 2012)

Right on.


----------



## thedeacon (Feb 11, 2012)

I can suck up and agree with that.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Feb 11, 2012)

I have nothing to disagree with the Senators position. In soite of liberal Dumocrats who would like to pretend marriage is something other than God's plan for continuing our species. The Lord ordained the home, and the family even before he established the Church. Must have been a good reason for that.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

Russdaddy said:


> Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.



Now that we have established historical precedent, can we discuss practical application?

My marriage is a vow betwen my wife, myself, and my God.  The government has nothing to do with it.  I have absolutely no idea why the government sanctions marriage in the first place.  

That being said, using the government to enforce morality is always a losing argument, because all you accomplish is behavior control, not morality.  Morality implies choosing the right thing....not doing what you are told.

I refuse to allow my faith to infringe on another man's liberty.  I refuse to use the cross as a tool of agression.  I will always vote for freedom, even when the practice of such freedom flies in the face of my personal beliefs.  A good example is that I hate folks who burn flags, but I will always support their right to burn them.  

I believe God wanted us to freely choose righteousness, not force it on each other.  If any Christian can give me an example of Jesus lobbying the government to make folks follow him I might change my mind.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

I personally would prefer to see R. Santorumn  go home and raise his family and rerun 8 years from now. He would probably get my vote at that time


----------



## TurkeyDreamer (Feb 12, 2012)

JB0704, first time I've ventured down to these parts.  But just wanted to comment how insightful your post was.  You've definitely spent some time thinking about tough issues as these.  Good post.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 12, 2012)

TurkeyDreamer said:


> JB0704, first time I've ventured down to these parts.  But just wanted to comment how insightful your post was.  You've definitely spent some time thinking about tough issues as these.  Good post.





It's good to hear.  I am often the oddball around here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It's good to hear.  I am often the oddball around here.



I'm the other oddball around here. I agree with your post, too. Everyone doesn't believe as I do and that's ok. 
My example is abortion. I'm pro life for myself, but I'm also prochoice for anyone who believes differently...I however do not want my taxes to go for subsidized abortions....one reason I believe it is murder, and I believe it's a sin. But everyone doesn't agree with that.

As far as 1 man, 1 woman, marriage, I believe that's Gods' intent for us.
But everyone doesn't believe that way, and that's ok, too. I'm responsible for my own sins and to preach the gospel whenever I get the opportunity, that is my job on earth.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 12, 2012)

Both of you are odd.   

I also agree with you Turkeydreamer.
I also agree with JB.  Your words are spot on.
I also agree with me.
I'm just an agreeing person tonight.  

Why do we have to get a marriage licenses?????
Money??


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 13, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Both of you are odd.   *And you're not?.....lol*
> 
> I also agree with you Turkeydreamer.
> I also agree with JB.  Your words are spot on.
> ...


 Well yeah, what other reason would you have to pay for one?


----------



## Russdaddy (Feb 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Now that we have established historical precedent, can we discuss practical application?
> 
> My marriage is a vow betwen my wife, myself, and my God.  The government has nothing to do with it.  I have absolutely no idea why the government sanctions marriage in the first place.
> 
> ...



as for flag burning, you will alow the government to dictate that you can or cannot burn it but the sanctity of marriage you won't get involved in. I am for protecting liberties, but lets not forget who gave us _which_ liberties. 

An extreme example, but from your take, a jihaddist who beleives his higher power will reward him with 5 billion virgins for killing americans should not be told by our goverment that he can't do that...it would be an infringement.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 13, 2012)

That's a terrible example!

If you kill people, you are taking liberty AND life from them.  Of course there should be a law that prevents that.  Burning a flag (no matter how stupid the person burning it is) takes liberty away from no one.

Believe that killing Americans will get you virgins all you want.  That's not illegal.  Do it?  We got a problem.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 13, 2012)

> My marriage is a vow betwen my wife, myself, and my God.



Funny thing about that word "vow"....I think we've diluted the meaning in our culture.


Aw nevermind.   I'm gonna get in trouble.  Y'all have a good day.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 13, 2012)

To love and to hold in sickness or health. To foresake all others.

( Even in our own sicknesses.)

Now what is more christian than this: Marriage for me is turning out to be a lesson on grace, the forgiveness of sin, faithfulness and creation. It is turning out to be a model for my relationship to the greater community--in sickness or health. It is turning out to be of course my model for a relationship with God and his will and ongoing creation.

What is said and not said, done and not done in my marriage, believed and not believed can be easily measured, sometimes decades down the roads. In this respect I get a small vision of the scope of God's engineering. Or that marriage is not a creature of the law, but a design of the Spirit.


----------



## leemckinney (Feb 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Now that we have established historical precedent, can we discuss practical application?
> 
> My marriage is a vow betwen my wife, myself, and my God.  The government has nothing to do with it.  I have absolutely no idea why the government sanctions marriage in the first place.
> 
> ...



I agree with part of your premise about Jesus but are not most laws based on some type of morality issue?  Murder, stealing, etc.  If we do not voice our opinion then will not people who believe totally different push their agenda and succeed because of the lack of opposition?  Just asking the questions since it is something I wonder about when confronting these issues.


----------



## Russdaddy (Feb 13, 2012)

leemckinney said:


> I agree with part of your premise about Jesus but are not most laws based on some type of morality issue?  Murder, stealing, etc.  If we do not voice our opinion then will not people who believe totally different push their agenda and succeed because of the lack of opposition?  Just asking the questions since it is something I wonder about when confronting these issues.



I could not have stated that any better. Thank you!


----------



## Russdaddy (Feb 13, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> That's a terrible example!
> 
> If you kill people, you are taking liberty AND life from them.  Of course there should be a law that prevents that.  Burning a flag (no matter how stupid the person burning it is) takes liberty away from no one.
> 
> Believe that killing Americans will get you virgins all you want.  That's not illegal.  Do it?  We got a problem.



Please explain the difference then:
beliving it is fine, but practicing it is different.???????

*Agreed* murder is a sin and the law upholds this. If Homosexuals want to create a "sanctified union" then I feel the same as you do about jihadist  believe in your "union"....then fine , but Do it? We got a problem...Government condoning it ...We got a bigger problem!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 13, 2012)

Russdaddy said:


> An extreme example, but from your take, a jihaddist who beleives his higher power will reward him with 5 billion virgins for killing americans should not be told by our goverment that he can't do that...it would be an infringement.



Think about it, would that infringe on another person's rights to life?  Yes.  So, that is not a valid example.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 13, 2012)

leemckinney said:


> I agree with part of your premise about Jesus but are not most laws based on some type of morality issue?  Murder, stealing, etc.  If we do not voice our opinion then will not people who believe totally different push their agenda and succeed because of the lack of opposition?  Just asking the questions since it is something I wonder about when confronting these issues.



Murder, stealing, all that involves one person infringing on the rights of another.  It is a basic philosphy that many hold that our rights begin and end at the tip of our nose, we are free to do that which does not infringe on another's rights.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 13, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> That's a terrible example!
> 
> If you kill people, you are taking liberty AND life from them.  Of course there should be a law that prevents that.  Burning a flag (no matter how stupid the person burning it is) takes liberty away from no one.
> 
> Believe that killing Americans will get you virgins all you want.  That's not illegal.  Do it?  We got a problem.



Hey man, we agree on this.

Now I am wondering what you were talking about with the vow stuff.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 13, 2012)

> beliving it is fine, but practicing it is different.???????



Uh....yes.  Ever read the constitution?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 13, 2012)

Somehow the PF has made its way over here.  Y'all move along now.  We get in enough trouble in here all by ourselves.  We definitely don't need any help.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 13, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Somehow the PF has made its way over here.  Y'all move along now.  We get in enough trouble in here all by ourselves.  We definitely don't need any help.



Well, when you went silent for a while it got boring around here, so I started bouncing around between here, the PF, and the hunting forum to help pass the time at work...looks like some of the topics cross the lines.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 13, 2012)

Russdaddy said:


> An extreme example, but from your take, a jihaddist who beleives his higher power will reward him with 5 billion virgins for killing americans should not be told by our goverment that he can't do that...it would be an infringement.


 
5 billion?  I thought it was 72?   
Please don't give them jihad'sts any ideas!


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 13, 2012)

Big amen here...





gordon 2 said:


> ...marriage is not a creature of the law, but a design of the Spirit.


 
Yes, indeed. And a great 'earthly' marriage can be a wonderful picture of the 'heavenly', as in Christ and His bride.

Me gots one of them great erff marriagez!  
I thank my Lord daily for it !


----------



## leemckinney (Feb 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Murder, stealing, all that involves one person infringing on the rights of another.  It is a basic philosphy that many hold that our rights begin and end at the tip of our nose, we are free to do that which does not infringe on another's rights.



I have always heard that one of the biggest reasons that gays want the right to have a government recognized marriage is so they could gain the right to adopt children.  Are we supposed to protect children from this?  Other than the ramifications that come along like this, I very much agree with your premise of living and let live.  I am very much this way on most of my political views thus I do not fit well into the conservative mold.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 13, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Big amen here...
> 
> Yes, indeed. And a great 'earthly' marriage can be a wonderful picture of the 'heavenly', as in Christ and His bride.
> 
> ...



You are very blessed and I'm also thankful that your marriage is great!! Thank you God!


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

leemckinney said:


> I have always heard that one of the biggest reasons that gays want the right to have a government recognized marriage is so they could gain the right to adopt children.  Are we supposed to protect children from this?  Other than the ramifications that come along like this, I very much agree with your premise of living and let live.  I am very much this way on most of my political views thus I do not fit well into the conservative mold.



That cannot be the reason.  They already adopt as is without marriage.  Single people are allowed to adopt children.  Perhaps it might make it easier to adopt.  I don't know.

To bring this back to a discussion on Christ and Christians...

There is not a legitimate way to show that scripture (and thus God) intended marriage as anything but man + woman.  If you are a Christian, and you believe that marriage is a sacred thing that is instituted by God and not by man, then you must follow what scripture tells us about that relationship.  There are certainly ways to twist scripture to make it "say" anything you want it to say.  But a genuine reading on the issue leaves you with "one man, one woman and God".

Should we legislate that?  My brain says no.  My heart, which follows Christ, says yes.  Honestly, I don't think it matters in terms of morality.  Homosexual relationships will still be considered "marriage" by those who want to do so regardless.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

leemckinney said:


> I have always heard that one of the biggest reasons that gays want the right to have a government recognized marriage is so they could gain the right to adopt children.  Are we supposed to protect children from this?  Other than the ramifications that come along like this, I very much agree with your premise of living and let live.  I am very much this way on most of my political views thus I do not fit well into the conservative mold.



I appreciate where you are coming from, and as a father of two, I think protectnig children is very important.  But, I have had the unique experience of being friends with a homosexual couple who adopted two kids.  Let me tell you, these kids were always in sports, one of their "mom's" was always out on the field helping coach, they were straight A students, and (this is going to "get" a few of y'all) they were in church every Sunday and heavily involved there.

I am pretty certain no parent is "without sin."  I make mistakes as a father all the time.  But I have seen an awful lot of damaging parenting done by heterosexual couples, and I have seen some really good parenting by homosexual couples.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Should we legislate that?  My brain says no.  My heart, which follows Christ, says yes.  Honestly, I don't think it matters in terms of morality.  Homosexual relationships will still be considered "marriage" by those who want to do so regardless.



That is another good reason to get the gov't out of the marriage business to start with.  Some folks enter into marriages with little to no intention of sticking with it through "thick and thin."  Some folks are "till death do us part."  Some folks say "we'll give it a go."  Everybody views the bond differently, and the gov't wastes time and resources playing referee.

I say we treat any "marriage" as a business partnership, and for gov't purposes, define it as such as well.  That way, nobody recognizes any marriage they don't want to, and all rights are equal.


----------



## GAGE (Feb 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I appreciate where you are coming from, and as a father of two, I think protectnig children is very important.  But, I have had the unique experience of being friends with a homosexual couple who adopted two kids.  Let me tell you, these kids were always in sports, one of their "mom's" was always out on the field helping coach, they were straight A students, and (this is going to "get" a few of y'all) they were in church every Sunday and heavily involved there.
> 
> I am pretty certain no parent is "without sin."  I make mistakes as a father all the time.  But I have seen an awful lot of damaging parenting done by heterosexual couples, and I have seen some really good parenting by homosexual couples.



Thank you for taking the time to post this,  and I hope that it will not fall on deaf ears.


----------



## TTom (Feb 14, 2012)

When you take the legal status aspect of marriage out of the equation then you can hold it to the religious standard definition you want to hold it to in your church.

However so long as you allow the State to use the term marriage to define a LEGAL union, denial of that legal union on the basis of your religious sanctity it is theocracy.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 14, 2012)

TTom said:


> However so long as you allow the State to use the term marriage to define a LEGAL union, denial of that legal union on the basis of your religious sanctity it is theocracy.



Except in California, where based on a vote, it is democracy.

Welcome back to the fray TTom


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> I am pretty certain no parent is "without sin." I make mistakes as a father all the time. But I have seen an awful lot of damaging parenting done by heterosexual couples, and I have seen some really good parenting by homosexual couples.





> Thank you for taking the time to post this, and I hope that it will not fall on deaf ears.



It does not fall on deaf ears and, he's absolutely right in saying that plenty of damage has been done by hetero couples.  No doubt on that.

But, it's not a valid position for a Christian to hold IMO and here's why.  Plenty of damage has been done by hetero couples.  It's not as if that damage is exclusive to hetero and is not "available" in a homosexual couple.  The logic in that position is that, since some hetero couples have damaged their kids, we should let homosexual couples give it a go...even though we know it is unbiblical.

From the Christian perspective, it's not a question of whether people can be stupid and be horrible parents.  We know very well that we all have the capacity for that and, absent Christ, we will all end up there.

The point, from the Christian perspective, is that homosexuals are living in open, unrepentant sin and (by proxy) then teach their adopted children that 1) homosexuality is ok and 2) they should accept it as a normal and intended relationship type.

From the non-Christian perspective 1) and 2) are perfectly fine and, if you want to believe that I'm ok with that.  But Christians should not support children being raised in ANY environment where the parents are living in open and unrepentant sin.  That could be alcoholism, drug abuse, physical abuse, homosexuality, adultery and any number of other things.  Should we outlaw all of those things?  Of course not.  But making them illiegal and wisely choosing parents for orphans are two entirely different arenas.  A Christian could not, in good conscience, place a child in a family with any of those issues.

Of course we all mess up.  We lose our temper.  We say things that are hurtful.  We probably do something to mess our kids up daily.  But, as Christians, when those things are brought to our attention and we know they are not pleasing to God, we should be heart broken over it and turn from that behavior as quickly as possible...even if we have to do it over and over again.

This is not a question of whether homosexuals are "good people".  Sin is sin (to a large degree, but let's not get into the semantics).  Continued open, unapologetic and unrepentant sin is something that we (again, as Christians) should NEVER support a child living under...even if his parents are "good people".

I am a continual sinner.  All of us are.  The difference is that I am not proud of my sin(s) and do not intend to teach my kids that certain things I might do are "ok" when I know that they are contrary to what the Bible tells me is good and righteous.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I am a continual sinner.  All of us are.  The difference is that I am not proud of my sin(s) and do not intend to teach my kids that certain things I might do are "ok" when I know that they are contrary to what the Bible tells me is good and righteous.



Reminds me of the Keith Green song based on Samuel telling Saul....

To obey is better than sacrifice.


I think we often get tripped up on trying to justify sinful methods with supposed righteous results.


----------



## TTom (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool the issue is simple if you use a religious standard to test for civil rights (marriage or adoption) you have established a theocracy.


----------



## TTom (Feb 14, 2012)

And thanks rjcruiser, LOL

You knew I'd show up here eventually. LOL


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> Huntinfool the issue is simple if you use a religious standard to test for civil rights (marriage or adoption) you have established a theocracy.




There is no right to adoption that I'm aware of.  We grant ourselves too many rights these days in the name of "social justice".  Most of them are not in the constitution.

I use a biblical standard to test for everything in my life my friend.  I simply posted up what I believe to be the proper Christian perspective on this issue.

No, I do not support gay couples being adoptive parents.  It is not only unbiblical, it is anti-biblical.  But, in my heart, I also do not support hetero non-Christian couples in adoption either.  

God calls us (Christians) to take care of widows and orphans (and others for that matter).  It's a high standard and one that we, as the body, have failed to take on.  We've given that responsibility over to others and the result is what we see today.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 14, 2012)

Isn't it true that a Christian should always consider marriage as something that was commissioned by God Himself??

If the marriage is based upon something outside of God's mandate for His marriage, can I even begin to discuss whether it's acceptable or not acceptable by me??  

What does "my" accepting it have to do with whether a couple is married or not?  It's God's institution!

Can my nations laws trumpt God's law?

.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Sigh, I have really enjoyed getting along with you lately.....



Huntinfool said:


> But, it's not a valid position for a Christian to hold IMO and here's why.  Plenty of damage has been done by hetero couples.  It's not as if that damage is exclusive to hetero and is not "available" in a homosexual couple..



"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  and the whole, judge not if you are not able to be judged in the same way....in this case parenting.  Nobody is a perfect parent.  



Huntinfool said:


> The point, from the Christian perspective, is that homosexuals are living in open, unrepentant sin and (by proxy) then teach their adopted children that 1) homosexuality is ok and 2) they should accept it as a normal and intended relationship type...



At what point are we allowed to say we have that domain over another person's home? 



Huntinfool said:


> This is not a question of whether homosexuals are "good people".  Sin is sin (to a large degree, but let's not get into the semantics).  Continued open, unapologetic and unrepentant sin is something that we (again, as Christians) should NEVER support a child living under...even if his parents are "good people".
> 
> I am a continual sinner.  All of us are.  The difference is that I am not proud of my sin(s) and do not intend to teach my kids that certain things I might do are "ok" when I know that they are contrary to what the Bible tells me is good and righteous.



HF, many people are proud of their "sin," they just don't believe it is.  I know hundreds of Christians who take great pride in the fact that they have pride.  I do not see any Christians attempting to prohibit them from having children.  But, the Bible is very specific that pride causes destruction.

My point is that we all got splinters, no parent is perfect.  If two folks are gay, but will give a kid a good chance at a happy, well adjusted childhood, who am I to force that child into a life of foster care (which has it's risks also) in order to meet my "ideals?"


----------



## TTom (Feb 14, 2012)

A Theocracy that for the moment suits your view, may for the moment seem like a hall of gold, you will soon discover it to be a gilded cage.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and the whole, judge not if you are not able to be judged in the same way....in this case parenting. Nobody is a perfect parent.



100% out of context.

I'm not judging their ability to parent and I am perfectly able to be judged in the same way I'm judging. I'm not living in open unrepentant sin and I'm not raising my children counter to scripture.  So, according the the scripture you just posted...I'm good.



> At what point are we allowed to say we have that domain over another person's home?



Never.  I didn't say they had to stop being gay.



> My point is that we all got splinters, no parent is perfect. If two folks are gay, but will give a kid a good chance at a happy, well adjusted childhood, who am I to force that child into a life of foster care (which has it's risks also) in order to meet my "ideals?"



Tell me something JB....be honest.  Is it more important for that kid to be "happy" or to know Christ in salvation (regardless of who his parents are)?

The options are gay parents or foster care?  That's it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> A Theocracy that for the moment suits your view, may for the moment seem like a hall of gold, you will soon discover it to be a gilded cage.



I never suggested that we should live in a theocracy.  I said I cannot support gay couples in adoption because of what shapes my world view.

It's less shocking to me that you think the way you do.  I know your reasons.  What I can't understand is how Christians in here can tell me that they support it because "we all screw up sometimes".


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

I gotta go eat lunch.  I'm starving.  

I'll do my best to let this thread go at this point.  I've laid out my case.  Y'all have fun.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> 100% out of context.



Isn't the context "a parent's sin?"  Isn't the precedent set that we should take care of our own business first?



Huntinfool said:


> I'm not judging their ability to parent and I am perfectly able to be judged in the same way I'm judging. I'm not living in open unrepentant sin and I'm not raising my children counter to scripture.  So, according the the scripture you just posted...I'm good..



A lot of us see our own behavior in a better way than it actually is.  I am not saying you specifically here, but I was raised in a church full of "Godly men" who were not.  They singled out drinking, adultery, and gayness, and overlooked pride and lust.  Pride is specifically called a path to destruction.  So, when the church begins to protest adoption by prideful parents, then I will say they are being intellectually honest.

One is an abomination.  One leads to destruction. Why do we think we should only protect kids from one of them?




Huntinfool said:


> Tell me something JB....be honest.  Is it more important for that kid to be "happy" or to know Christ in salvation (regardless of who his parents are)?



To know Christ.  But how does having gay parents hinder that?  I mentioned the couple I knew took their kids to church.

We are all responsible for our decisions, regardless of our circumstances.  I grew up believing certain things which turned out to be totally false.  It was my job to find the truth.  Same with you and everybody else who ever lived.


----------



## TTom (Feb 14, 2012)

Well yes I have the advantage so to speak of not having to balance a civil rights view and a scriptural law view that is counter to it.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> What I can't understand is how Christians in here can tell me that they support it because "we all screw up sometimes".



HF, hear me out please.....I hope you understand what I am saying.  This is not a "live and let live" position I am taking.  It is a calculated position based on weighing the alternatives. 

The point I am doing a very poor job of communicating is that I have seen and witnessed some very well adjusted and loved kids growing up in a gay home.  These kids were adopted from a third world country where poverty, aids, etc. is common.  I do not think for one second that they would be better off in a foster home, in a third world country, than they are in a loving, "gay" home.  I think any of us would rather see kids grow up in a gay home that loves them, will nurture them, and take them to church, than let them starve to death or die of disease and filth.

Adopted kids come from parents who don't want them, or can't have them (for various reasons).  Every time.  I say they are always better where they are wanted and loved, than in a place where they are a burden (foster homes, etc.).  The foster system does not "want them," it assumes responsibility by the state because nobody will.

As a Christian, I think it would be absolutely silly of me to expect a child grow up as a burden, than have a shot at a childhood where they are wanted and loved.

I am learning how incredibly difficult the adoption process is now.  Anybody who would go through this does so because they have a desire to give a kid a good life that was not previously available.  You should also know that there are TONS of kids who will never be adopted....why limit the options available to them for having a happy childhood?

Then, we can preach and teach the gospel, and if they want to listen, they will.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

TTom said:


> Well yes I have the advantage so to speak of not having to balance a civil rights view and a scriptural law view that is counter to it.



You can do both once you understand that scriptural law is not to be enforced at the point of a gun.  It is to be chosen.

I can believe in God, and refuse to force my beliefs on others at the same time because I believe that is the model given to Christians.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

As I ate fried okra and pork chops for lunch, I had a thought:

I would appreciate it if any of yu who oppose gay couples adopting answer this honestly (what good are beliefs if we don't claim them, right).....do you think the state should also prevent Jews from adopting?  They are living in "open sin," (rejecting Jesus), Their children would be les inclined to the gospel.  

Every argument you can make against gay adoption could also be made against Jewish adoption.  If I remember correctly, rejection of Jesus is the "biggest" sin one could make.

Why don't we do what we should, preach and teach the gospel, and let other's choose as they see fit?  Give these kids a chance at a good life.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> As I ate fried okra and pork chops for lunch, I had a thought:
> 
> I would appreciate it if any of yu who oppose gay couples adopting answer this honestly (what good are beliefs if we don't claim them, right).....do you think the state should also prevent Jews from adopting?  They are living in "open sin," (rejecting Jesus), Their children would be les inclined to the gospel.
> 
> ...




This ^^ was answered by this.  Powerful stuff.  I would guess that HF would prefer that all congress men, dog catchers, circus freaks, warlords.....EVERYBODY be Christian:



Huntinfool said:


> There is no right to adoption that I'm aware of.  We grant ourselves too many rights these days in the name of "social justice".  Most of them are not in the constitution.
> 
> I use a biblical standard to test for everything in my life my friend.  I simply posted up what I believe to be the proper Christian perspective on this issue.
> 
> ...



For what it's worth JB, I think HF reads his Bible correctly when it comes to Homosexuality.  It's a sin.  Unless a gay does whatever they must to drive out the impure thoughts and desires that they have then they are unrepentant.  Ain't that grand?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

He does read it correctly.  But we all see it differently when it comes to application and how we view / interact with those around us. I know my view is a bit different.  I just hate it for some kid to grow up bouncing around foster care (many do) while there are loving families out there who would do their best to be good parents.

I had missed the part where he was against non-Christians adopting.  I give him credit for his convictions.  Quite a few who agree with him have read the question already and not answered.

Do you guys know that adoption can cost between 15 and 40K.   My wife and I are about to get our home-study done so we can adopt.....it is horribly expensive.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> He does read it correctly.  But we all see it differently when it comes to application and how we view / interact with those around us. I know my view is a bit different.  I just hate it for some kid to grow up bouncing around foster care (many do) while there are loving families out there who would do their best to be good parents.
> 
> I had missed the part where he was against non-Christians adopting.  I give him credit for his convictions.  Quite a few who agree with him have read the question already and not answered.
> 
> Do you guys know that adoption can cost between 15 and 40K.   My wife and I are about to get our home-study done so we can adopt.....it is horribly expensive.



I think many would prefer that the starving, fly covered, vulture pecked kid submit to Christ then die in the dirt than be adopted by gays.  Am I wrong?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think many would prefer that the starving, fly covered, vulture pecked kid submit to Christ then die in the dirt than be adopted by gays.  Am I wrong?



I can only answer for me here, and I would much rather the kid be adopted by some gays than to die that kind of death.  As long as we are alive, we have hope.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I can only answer for me here, and I would much rather the kid be adopted by some gays than to die that kind of death.  As long as we are alive, we have hope.



Not putting you on the spot or singling you out but it's such a rare opportunity to ask questions to an unorthodox Christian like yourself.  So, just for clarification, if the kid repented then died in the dirt would that be worse than being adopted by Buddhist gays, living a full happy life and maybe never submitting to Christ?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> I would guess that HF would prefer that all congress men, dog catchers, circus freaks, warlords.....EVERYBODY be Christian:



I would love it if everyone knew Christ as their savior and had an abiding relationship with him.  You are correct.

I would not prefer that we make a law saying that everyone is required to be Christian.  We have enough people pretending to follow Christ these days.  We don't need a law to force the issue.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> if the kid repented then died in the dirt would that be worse than being adopted by Buddhist gays, living a full happy life and maybe never submitting to Christ?



If a child came to a saving knowledge of Christ and then died...yes...it would be better than living any life with any parents and never knowing Him.  

I would prefer him not die in the dirt in agony.  I would prefer someone scoop him up and save him from that.  But, if he accepted Christ and died, it would indeed be better than living 100 years and never knowing him.

It would be better if a Christian scooped that child up out of that agony and raised him.  Why does the Buddhist gay couple get the only shot at it?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Not putting you on the spot or singling you out but it's such a rare opportunity to ask questions to an unorthodox Christian like yourself.  So, just for clarification, if the kid repented then died in the dirt would that be worse than being adopted by Buddhist gays, living a full happy life and maybe never submitting to Christ?



I would rather her have the full and happy life, with the opportunity to accept or reject faith, than to guarantee a short miserable life, with a guarantee of heaven.  Life is a gift.

The reason for this is that I believe (and you know you set me up to get hammered here) everybody gets a chance.  So, I think the eskimo who never heard of the God of Abraham has a chance too.  We have had some good debate on it in this forum.

So, if I believe the eskimo who never hears about Jesus has a chance, then I would assume the gay budhist also has a chance.  

Now, many on here will disagree with me on that.  and, many are conflicted on this.  We have free-will folks, predestination folks, baptism only folks, Jesus saved everybody folks, Jesus saved only the "elect" folks, only those who reject folks, etc. 

If the question is point blank between a long happy life then he11, or short miserable life then heaven, I think everybody would choose the latter.  But, that is not the case, because none of us know the future.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> I would rather her have the full and happy life, with the opportunity to accept or reject faith, than to guarantee a short miserable life, with a guarantee of heaven. Life is a gift.



Really?

You'd rather her live a long life on earth with the possibility of salvation (and thus possible rejection) than a short one with the promise of it?

JB....you've caught me speachless again.  Why is life on earth important if you've guaranteed eternity?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Why does the Buddhist gay couple get the only shot at it?



The difference is that I think everybody should get a shot at adopting to guarantee that baby gets scooped up.

That picture he posted a few months back absolutely broke my heart, and strengthened my resolve to adopt a kid.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I would rather her have the full and happy life, with the opportunity to accept or reject faith, than to guarantee a short miserable life, with a guarantee of heaven.  Life is a gift.
> 
> The reason for this is that I believe (and you know you set me up to get hammered here) everybody gets a chance.  So, I think the eskimo who never heard of the God of Abraham has a chance too.  We have had some good debate on it in this forum.
> 
> ...




Man!!! I'm glad not everyone is a fundamentalist.  

Maybe you are who the Bible is talking about when it says "you will be persecuted form all sides for your belief".


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Really?
> 
> You'd rather her live a long life on earth with the possibility of salvation (and thus possible rejection) than a short one with the promise of it?
> 
> JB....you've caught me speachless again.  Why is life on earth important if you've guaranteed eternity?



Read the last sentence of my post.  Life is here for a reason HF.  Life is a gift.  I do not believe in predestination, so I will continue to believe that child has a chance at salvation.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> Maybe you are who the Bible is talking about when it says "you will be persecuted form all sides for your belief".



Yep....that's it.  You got it.  Funny how accepting an Atheist is when "Christian" views all of a sudden line up with his own, huh?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Yep....that's it.  You got it.  Funny how accepting an Atheist is when "Christian" views all of a sudden line up with his own, huh?



What?

Again, did you read the last sentence of my post?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> I would rather her have the full and happy life, with the opportunity to accept or reject faith, than to guarantee a short miserable life, with a guarantee of heaven. Life is a gift.



You are the one who used the words "opportunity" and "guarantee".  I just asked a question about it.

Life is a gift, if you want to put it that way.  But life here in no way compares to eternity in Heaven.  If you could guarantee that to someone...would you really chance it for a longer life here?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Let me clarify:

I think as long as we have breath, we have a chance.  I think the Bible says "none are without an excuse."  So, to me, everybody has a chance.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> Again, did you read the last sentence of my post?



I did.  Did you read the first one?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I did.  Did you read the first one?



You're killing me, man.

As soon as I read his question I knew two things:

1. I had to answer it (because I asked a "trap question" too).

2. I was in big trouble.

I don't think what I am saying is out of sync with the Bible.  I hate the way this sounds, and let me apologize up front for that, but we don't kill our kids the second they accept Christ.  We let them live, and breathe, and enjoy creation with all of it's thorns.  Even those who believe salvation can be lost.


----------



## Russdaddy (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Really?
> 
> You'd rather her live a long life on earth with the possibility of salvation (and thus possible rejection) than a short one with the promise of it?
> 
> JB....you've caught me speachless again.  Why is life on earth important if you've guaranteed eternity?



I have been following you guys' coversation. I have to give you both credit. you are both well spoken and equally equiped to present your positions. That being said I  do agree with your posts Huntin fool.


----------



## GAGE (Feb 14, 2012)

Well I guess that the person who came up with the phrase about living every day to the fullest, or Carpe Diem, was not a Christian.   HF, I respect your convictions,  but as look at my own life,  I just do not get them.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Russdaddy said:


> That being said I  do agree with your posts Huntin fool.



He usually kicks my %#%^ on this forum.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> He usually kicks my %#%^ on this forum.


To the unwanted kid who just wants to be loved, you'll be the big winner.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 14, 2012)

> He usually kicks my %#%^ on this forum.



Nah, come on man.  We're good.  I think we say the same thing most of the time...it just gets lost in translation sometimes.

I know what you're saying.  But when you put it in terms of "guarantee", I couldn't figure out why you would choose this life.  That's all.



> Well I guess that the person who came up with the phrase about living every day to the fullest, or Carpe Diem, was not a Christian. HF, I respect your convictions, but as look at my own life, I just do not get them.



Gage...how so?  Do you mind expanding on that?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Nah, come on man.  We're good.  I think we say the same thing most of the time...it just gets lost in translation sometimes.



 It's cool.  I missed the debates while you took a hiatus.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

WaltL1 said:


> To the unwanted kid who just wants to be loved, you'll be the big winner.



Thanks.


----------



## Russdaddy (Feb 15, 2012)

leemckinney said:


> I have always heard that one of the biggest reasons that gays want the right to have a government recognized marriage is so they could gain the right to adopt children.  Are we supposed to protect children from this?  Other than the ramifications that come along like this, I very much agree with your premise of living and let live.  I am very much this way on most of my political views thus I do not fit well into the conservative mold.



•Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and use half of the dollars to support adoption instead.
___Part of Santorum's plan, just thought you might find this interesting.
http://www.ricksantorum.com/spending-cuts-and-entitlements-reform


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 15, 2012)

Wasn't the homosexuality rule done away with by the new covenant? I know homosexual prostitution wasn't? What does the Bible say about adoption? Would it be ok for a lesbian couple who aren't married to adopt? What does the Bible say about lesbians?
Mark 7: 20-23 This would knock a lot of married couples out of adoption. Probably theft being the biggest. Playing on the computer at work, cheating on income taxes. I could never qualify.
 Mark 7: 20-23
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual impurities, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 15, 2012)

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

This is much worse


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 15, 2012)

Something else to ponder. Would it be ok for a single Christian to adopt? Found this little excerpt.
Read Esther. Mordecai, her older cousin, adopted Esther and raised her as his daughter because she had no mother or father. Nowhere does the Book of Esther, which goes so far as to identify Haman's wife and sons, give any indication that Mordecai had a wife or other children. In fact, it states that Esther "continued to follow Mordecai's instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up." Esther 2:19. It seems unlikely in that patriarchal culture that Mordecai would have been instructing Esther, or considered to be "bringing her up" if he had had a wife. That sort of instruction to girls was women's work, if it happened at all. So, if adoption by a single parent was good enough for Esther, why shouldn't it be good enough in our time?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 15, 2012)

Hey dodger,
I'll bet the question mark key on your keyboard is bright and shiney.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 15, 2012)

Dogpile is my friend!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 15, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Really?
> 
> You'd rather her live a long life on earth with the possibility of salvation (and thus possible rejection) than a short one with the promise of it?
> 
> JB....you've caught me speachless again.  Why is life on earth important if you've guaranteed eternity?



I agree. 

My only 'job' on earth is to make sure my loved ones are saved. If they die unsaved, I'll never see them again. It would hurt now, but I know it won't hurt then...no tears in heaven.

I am relentless when it comes to this...I'll whip out that sword(the word of God) in a heartbeat....but I am soft and gentle...believe it or not.

I ask my granddaughters, 'who do you say Jesus is?' they tell me and I can tell they believe it.  Then I tell them what a bible story means, that took me 40 yrs to figure out and apply it to their/my life.
Even on their level and the things they stress over, I explain to them that maybe spelling (one gd is dyslexic and can't even understand the instructions of any of her homework). She cries and gets so frustrated, she is in the 4th grade, but should be in the fifth. I tell her to pray for God to give her the tools to slay that goliath that stands before her...and I believe with her that He will. When two or more are gathered in His name......

Eternity....that's what I'm worried about ultimately while keeping them in the word.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 16, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> You are the one who used the words "opportunity" and "guarantee".  I just asked a question about it.
> 
> Life is a gift, if you want to put it that way.  But life here in no way compares to eternity in Heaven.  If you could guarantee that to someone...would you really chance it for a longer life here?



There was a mother who killed her children to guarantee
their salvation before they reached the age of accountability.


----------



## dawg2 (Feb 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Something else to ponder. Would it be ok for a single Christian to adopt? Found this little excerpt.
> Read Esther. Mordecai, her older cousin, adopted Esther and raised her as his daughter because she had no mother or father. Nowhere does the Book of Esther, which goes so far as to identify Haman's wife and sons, give any indication that Mordecai had a wife or other children. In fact, it states that Esther "continued to follow Mordecai's instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up." Esther 2:19. It seems unlikely in that patriarchal culture that Mordecai would have been instructing Esther, or considered to be "bringing her up" if he had had a wife. That sort of instruction to girls was women's work, if it happened at all. So, if adoption by a single parent was good enough for Esther, why shouldn't it be good enough in our time?



Who says it isn't?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 16, 2012)

Some states are trying to block adoptions. 

As of May 2011: Arizona recently enacted a new bill which states preference that a child be adopted by "a married man and woman." While single people can adopt, there are certain conditions in which they would be considered: no married couple is available; the single person is the child's legal relative; the child would otherwise be placed in extended foster care; a "meaningful and healthy relationship" exists between the child and the single person; the birth parent(s) places the child with the single person; or the child's best interests require adoption by the single person.The emphasis on a single person leads us to believe unmarried couples are unable to jointly adopt a child, as explaned by Nancy Polikoff in her blog post on the issue. View alert above to take action.   

*Read more about recent state adoption bans. 

In 2010, the Louisiana Senate struck down a measure that would allow unmarried couples to adopt and allow an existing parent to petition a court to be a second legal parent. Arizona struck down its ban on same-sex couples and all unmarried cohabiting couples. In 2009, Florida ruled its adoption ban unconstitutional. Kentucky and Tennessee attempt to pass adoption bans died. Currently, Utah bars adoptions by persons who are cohabiting but not legally married; this language could be interpreted to encompass gay and lesbian adoptions. Five states (Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah and Wisconsin) explicitly prohibit same-sex co-parents from petitioning to adopt their partner's child, or the child of their relationship. In three states (Georgia, Mississippi and Wyoming) the right to petition is unclear. Michigan has no statutory ban however, state courts have ruled that unmarried individuals are not allowed to jointly petition to adopt. 

In addition, some states have passed laws giving married couples priority in adoption, and some prevent same-sex couples or unmarried people from becoming foster parents (foster parenting is often a first step towards adoption). 

These laws harm children. For children waiting to be adopted, adoption bans shrink the pool of qualified adoptive parents, in some cases even preventing a child's own foster parents from becoming her or his permanent, adoptive parents. For children with only one legal parent plus a co-parent, these bans make the parent-child relationship unnecessarily vulnerable. If the first parent should die, or if the couple should separate, courts can refuse to recognize the second parent and prevent the child from having an ongoing relationship with one of the people who has acted as her/his parent.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> There was a mother who killed her children to guarantee
> their salvation before they reached the age of accountability.



and your point is....

....there are insane people in the world?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 16, 2012)

She made the ultimate sacrifice for her children. Why do you think she was insane? Life on earth is not as important as eternity in Heaven.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> She made the ultimate sacrifice for her children.


No she didn't, she murdered her kids. There is only One who can make the ultimate sacrifice and He already completed it.



> Why do you think she was insane?


Because she killed her kids. Most people, in this day and time, who kill their kids are a little nutty.



> Life on earth is not as important as eternity in Heaven.



Very true.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 16, 2012)

> She made the ultimate sacrifice for her children. Why do you think she was insane? Life on earth is not as important as eternity in Heaven.



She did not make the ultimate sacrifice for them.  She sacrificed them.  BIG difference.

She was not guaranteeing anything.  The situation JB described was hypothetical because NONE of us can judge the condition of a man's (or child's) soul (that is God's and his alone) and NONE of us knows what the very debatable age of accountability is.

She did not make any sacrifice for those kids.  She was mentally unstable and murdered them.  But you already know that.

You need to understand the disctinction.  It is better for someone to know Christ and die early than live a long life and not know him.  

That does not mean it is good to kill children.  You have to know what your standard is.  Is what I'm about to do biblical?  Does it stand the test of scripture?

Murdering children for the sake of salvation is not in any way defendable using scripture as your test...


......long pause...waiting for one of our resident atheists to bring up Abraham and Isaac....wait for it....wait for it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> She did not make the ultimate sacrifice for them.  She sacrificed them.  BIG difference.
> 
> She was not guaranteeing anything.  The situation JB described was hypothetical because NONE of us can judge the condition of a man's (or child's) soul (that is God's and his alone) and NONE of us knows what the very debatable age of accountability is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 16, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> She did not make the ultimate sacrifice for them.  She sacrificed them.  BIG difference.
> 
> She was not guaranteeing anything.  The situation JB described was hypothetical because NONE of us can judge the condition of a man's (or child's) soul (that is God's and his alone) and NONE of us knows what the very debatable age of accountability is.
> 
> ...


Your right i did already know the answer but it sounded similar to the  hypothetical question brought up earlier. Do you think it would be better for a young child to die an early age than to be raised by homosexual parents? Wouldn't it be possible for the child to become an adult Christian and convert his parents? I realized you did say, than to never know Him in your original answer.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 16, 2012)

> Wouldn't it be possible for the child to become an adult Christian and convert his parents?



Absolutely it's possible.  Many many followers of Christ were raised in non-Christian homes.  Not being a Christian is not exclusive to homosexuals.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 16, 2012)

> As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
> (Genesis 50:20 ESV)



Sometimes, indeed, things that appear meant for evil turn out to be part of something that God intends for good.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 16, 2012)

This is a very controversial post, I'm glad i didn't start it. I could be wrong, but it appears it was started as a way to divide the Orthodox Christians with the Unorthodox Christians.
(Just Kidding, I've  actually enjoyed the topic.)


----------



## SouthernBlood (Feb 17, 2012)

_My example is abortion. I'm pro life for myself, but I'm also prochoice for anyone who believes differently...I however do not want my taxes to go for subsidized abortions....one reason I believe it is murder, and I believe it's a sin. But everyone doesn't agree with that._

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you wouldn't stand by while people do it and simply say that it's ok for them but not for you. Would you allow someone to kill an adult right in front of you? And then simply say, "Well, if that's your opinion, it's ok to murder him..., it's just not good in my opinion." Weak minded.


----------



## Lead Poison (Feb 18, 2012)

Without question, marriage is one man married to one woman! 

Marriage has never been, is not and will never be a man married to another man, nor a woman married to another woman. God forbid!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

SouthernBlood said:


> _My example is abortion. I'm pro life for myself, but I'm also prochoice for anyone who believes differently...I however do not want my taxes to go for subsidized abortions....one reason I believe it is murder, and I believe it's a sin. But everyone doesn't agree with that._
> 
> If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you wouldn't stand by while people do it and simply say that it's ok for them but not for you. Would you allow someone to kill an adult right in front of you? And then simply say, "Well, if that's your opinion, it's ok to murder him..., it's just not good in my opinion." Weak minded.



Of course not. 
Any one that would kill an adult... there is a law against it, isn't there? and from a spiritual point of view, the bible says thou shalt not kill. So I wouldn't kill anyone nor would I have an abortion. And I would talk anyone I could out of it.

I didn't say that abortion wasn't murder, I believe it is, but there isn't a law against it and everyone doesn't consider it murder. There is nothing I can do but vote, to stop anyone from killing their unborn child. What do you suggest I do? Would I prefer it to be illegal, of course I would but it isn't. I can't force someone who doesn't have any conviction from God or maybe not even believe in God to believe anything that I want them to believe, can I? All I can do is tell them why I believe it is wrong, IF they ask me or I get the opportunity to jump in and I'm good at jumping in.  I'm not gonna force my position on anyone who doesn't want to hear it though...that's my point.

I hope that makes better sense.

Let me ask you this, since I'm weak minded, what do you suggest I do? what do you do about it? it's still legal, so all of us haven't done enough, not just me. But if you have some secret plan of something I can do, please, I'd love to hear it, I do not want my granddaughters to have that choice.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> ......long pause...waiting for one of our resident atheists to bring up Abraham and Isaac....wait for it....wait for it.



Let me clarify before they do 

That was just a test....Abraham didn't kill Isaac.

That took me 30 yrs to change my thought process on that because I was afraid God would take my only child..so I ran far away from God....sheesh, that was only the debbil's double talk.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think many would prefer that the starving, fly covered, vulture pecked kid submit to Christ then die in the dirt than be adopted by gays.  Am I wrong?



Really? Have you adopted any of those starving children? If you're really THAT concerned about them getting adopted by some Jesus Freaks, you should try to 'save' them from their plight. Have you done that?

My church has adopted 70 kids out of kazakhstan out of the same orphanage, brothers, sisters together and others that they grew up with. Yes they are a part of the church, but I'm sure they are glad to be anywhere else besides where they were. Some of them had to be trained to even be  loved, or hug or touch others. They were rarely picked up or tended to.    Why do you think that's a bad thing? They can become what they want to when they are adults, at least for now they are safe.
Ever read about the orphanages in kazakhstan? Perhaps if you did you'd be happy they were adopted and yes it is very expensive.

Perhaps you should adopt a few or at least not condemn those who care enough to do it, no matter who they are.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> He does read it correctly.  But we all see it differently when it comes to application and how we view / interact with those around us. I know my view is a bit different.  I just hate it for some kid to grow up bouncing around foster care (many do) while there are loving families out there who would do their best to be good parents.
> 
> I had missed the part where he was against non-Christians adopting.  I give him credit for his convictions.  Quite a few who agree with him have read the question already and not answered.
> 
> Do you guys know that adoption can cost between 15 and 40K.   My wife and I are about to get our home-study done so we can adopt.....it is horribly expensive.



My prayers will be with you during your adoption process and I'd be interested in following that process.
God Bless You!


----------

