Alkhilafa Rasullalah wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:It proves there's households out there that can do a "father's" tasks without needing a man to be present in the household. I don't believe in "gender-neutral" but the way these opponents of gay adoption talk about gender roles it's pretty clear they're afraid of their own notions of gender roles being wrong.
There might also be some "primal" homophobia (ie. evolutionary instinct to look down on relationships that don't produce offspring) and/or a touch of bitterness over there being women they know for a fact they'll never get to bang, but most people don't discriminate to that extent over it.
Would the “primal” element make them in favour of it, if anything.
Regarding the point about a father figure, I believe in gender roles but one or more of the lesbians who adopt a child could have a brother to fulfil that male role.
Conservatives believe in the nuclear family, not the extend family. They speak of going where the jobs are, meaning the sister and the brother are going to have to establish different nuclear families in different towns when their skills take them wherever those skills are needed.
They obviously don't give a shit if he cheats on her (see; 2016 primaries) but they do give a shit if he isn't portraying whatever they consider the stereotypical image of a suburban father this week.
Lady Victory wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:May as well reject it altogether. The Bible compares gays and the effeminate to adulterers and says they won't get into heaven. If they were wrong about that, what else could they be wrong about?
You're quoting the passage out of context.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was meant specifically for the Church in Corinth and the issues it was facing at the time and was not meant to be a universal ruling on anything. The Corinthian Church was facing division from within partly due to pagan influences which still held sway in their community and Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to address their issues by offering possible solutions. The passage you quoted is specifically referring to homosexual acts, not homosexual attraction, and is likely an attack on the practice of pederasty (a common practice in Ancient Greece) rather than an attack on homosexuality in general.
If the Bible can't even be translated right, why should we trust anything else coming out of it? Who knows how much else is mistranslated? The verses invoked against embryonic stem cell research, perhaps?
Don't try to eat around the rot if you don't know how contaminated the rest of the apple is. Christianity is garbage. Throw it away.