The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[David T]

Adoption is the means by which one becomes one's child.

Adoption is how I became a son of God, a son of Christ, and a son of Abraham.

[Ahab]

Adoption is the means by which one becomes one's child.

That adoption doesn't change who the literal parents are, though, meaning the ones who actually created or procreated the child.

God is our Father in heaven even if we are not adopted through Jesus Christ, because he is the one who actually begat us as his spirit children, and when Jesus Christ becomes our adopted Father it doesn't mean he somehow becomes the one who begat us.

I'm talking about parents actually creating children, through propagation, and that is not what adopted parents do.

Adoption is how I became a son of God, a son of Christ, and a son of Abraham.

If you're not actually a child of either of those persons, through propagation, that is right, but if either of those persons actually begat you, then no adoption is necessary to make you one of their children because you're already their child without that.

Sheesh. Do you really think becoming an adopted parent to a child makes you one of the ones who begat that child?

I don't think so. I think you're just being silly, on purpose.

[David T]

That adoption doesn't change who the literal parents are, though, meaning the ones who actually created or procreated the child.

God is our Father in heaven even if we are not adopted through Jesus Christ, because he is the one who actually begat us as his spirit children, and when Jesus Christ becomes our adopted Father it doesn't mean he somehow becomes the one who begat us.

I'm talking about parents actually creating children, through propagation, and that is not what adopted parents do.

If you're not actually a child of either of those persons, through propagation, that is right, but if either of those persons actually begat you, then no adoption is necessary to make you one of their children because you're already their child without that.

Sheesh. Do you really think becoming an adopted parent to a child makes you one of the ones who begat that child?

I don't think so. I think you're just being silly, on purpose.

You equated 'begetting' a child as being the only way to be one's 'real' parents.

I never argued adopting parents are genetic parents.

I argued that your demoting of adoptive parents to not being able to have the 'real' experience of parenthood, and even equating them to glorified babysitters, and not 'true' parents is incongruent with the principles of the Gospel. In fact, you said that although God will honor the covenant sealing, they're still not really their kids, and they're still not really their parents.

Having sex isn't the only or even best way to be a 'real' parent.

Gah, I said I was done here, but this hit a nerve. I shouldn't have even poked in again.

Edited September 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

You equated 'begetting' a child as being the only way to be one's 'real' parents.

I never argued adopting parents are genetic parents.

I argued that your demoting of adoptive parents to not being able to have the 'real' experience of parenthood, and even equating them to glorified babysitters, and not 'true' parents is incongruent with the principles of the Gospel. In fact, you said that although God will honor the covenant sealing, they're still not really their kids, and they're still not really their parents.

Having sex isn't the only or even best way to be a 'real' parent.

Gah, I said I was done here, but this hit a nerve. I shouldn't have even poked in again.

I think you may be quibbling over the meaning of "real." You understand the word in a qualitative sense, whereas Ahab meant it in a genetic sense. Hopefully, your nerve will be be at peace when you now learn what Ahab was actually trying to say, and not what you initially mis-took him as saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

I think you may be quibbling over the meaning of "real." You understand the word in a qualitative sense, whereas Ahab meant it in a genetic sense. Hopefully, your nerve will be be at peace when you now learn what Ahab was actually trying to say, and not what you initially mis-took him as saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

He still equated the parental experience and relationship of adoptive parents as being less legitimate or substantial than biological parents, and even equated adoptive parents as glorified babysitters. That went beyond semantics.

His words about adoptive parents:

"adopting or fostering a child" leads to "partners" that "will still never have a child of their own, and instead they will only be something like babysitters ".

This is what I object to. The equating of adoptive parents to the status of "only...something like babysitters", , who are unable to have a legitimate parental experience and relationship with their children.

Edited September 29, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Cobalt-70]

There are a lot of disadvantages to being homosexual. If you’re homosexual:

1) You’ll never truly know the opposite sex, or even the full extent of your own sex.

Sexuality is classified as being either male or female. While some people have some traits that are both masculine and feminine, only a male has all of the traits of a male, and only a female has all of the traits of a female, therefore, only a male can truly know what it is to be male, and only a female can truly know what it is to be female unless a member of one sex shares their life with a member of the opposite sex while getting to know each other better and better until they get to know each other completely. People who are homosexual are depriving themselves of that opportunity. Persons who are homosexual may think they can assume the sexuality of the opposite sex from the limited knowledge they have of the opposite sex or their own sex with one homosexual acting more male or female than the other, but a female acting like a male will never truly know what it is to be male or even a complete female, and a male acting like a female will never truly know what it is to be female or even a complete male. Instead they will attain only a portion of what they could have been otherwise.

This discussion confuses sex, sexual orientation and gender. Gay men and lesbian women do not "assume the sexuality of the opposite sex," because that is really a meaningless statement. Some gay men may have feminine gender traits, as some lesbian women may have masculine gender traits, but some straight men are also feminine, and some straight women are also masculine. Just because a straight women likes wrestling, doesn't shave her armpits, doesn't wear makeup, and has big biceps doesn't mean she will never "experience the full extent" of being a woman. Same goes for lesbian women.

Gender, sexual orientation, and sex are three discrete things.

[Ahab]

He still equated the parental experience and relationship of adoptive parents as being less legitimate or substantial than biological parents, and even equated adoptive parents as glorified babysitters. That went beyond semantics.

His words about adoptive parents:

"adopting or fostering a child" leads to "partners" that "will still never have a child of their own, and instead they will only be something like babysitters ".

This is what I object to. The equating of adoptive parents to the status of "only...something like babysitters", , who are unable to have a legitimate parental experience and relationship with their children.

You seem to be talking about taking on the "role" of a parent, in a nurturing or fostering sense, rather than being the literal parents of children. as I was.

I'm sure you know where babies actually come from. They all come from parents who are of the opposite sex, with no homosexual being able to propagate any children.

You're talking as if all it takes to be a parent is the "nurturing" aspect of being a good parent, but 2 people actually have to propagate to produce a child in the first place.

My point was simply that homosexuals aren't able to do that, nor will they ever be able to.

I agree that they can "nurture" a child, though, or at least to some extent.

They just can't help that child to be all that he or she has the potential to be because they don't even know how to do that themselves. Or in other words, a homosexual man isn't a complete man, as a man should be, and a homosexual woman isn't a complete woman, as a woman should be, so as a parent they will fall short of helping that child to attain a fulness of glory even though they can nurture a child, to some extent.

[Ares]

This has wandered far from the OP and is now another socio-political thread on homosexuality. Time to close the discussion.