And a pleasant good morning to you!

If I may: Remember in elementary school when they taught us that "two wrongs don't make a right"? Getting in people's faces with wrong hetero parenting isn't going to convince people that homo parenting is right either. I always smile when I read about you going on trips with your son, having a normal family experience. Please know that it's flooding people with the latter, not the former, that will teach them that we're all equally capable of loving each other and our children.

If the child was disobeident and his wife did not submit to him, then the Buy-Bull supports the husband's disiplinary measures.

Just how do we know these people are straight? What is the "Wife" were a transvestite? Huh? Would you be telling the story then? I thought not!

THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS IS ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE OR EVE AND... WELL, YOU GET THE IDEA!!!

What "natural order" are you talking about? In a secular country like the USA citizens are not required to follow Christian teachings. Christians do not occupy a special place in America. My rights as an atheist are exactlly equal to your rights as a Christian.

I am so tired of people using the Adam and Steve quote to make some point like they think it is original and they just thought of it.
Ya this story does not make same sex parenting better. Some people are just Psychotic. But there are some people that would make bad parents and some that would make good ones from both same sex and opposite sex partners.

It took me a long while to realize that arguing with such people as "Christian Homemaker" isn't in itself the goal of any reasonable person; rather, it's the hope that for every nut you exchange words with, ten more are listening on and will eventually fall down from their position on the fence to embrace a world made of anything but hatred.

If God made Adam and Eve then He must have also made Steve. If believers of the Christian faith bothered to check they would see that Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality. He did take the time to condemn a fig tree so why don't the Christians boycott Fig Newtons?

OK, I have to admit - I was the "Christian Homemaker", and my posting was entirely tongue-in-cheek.

I thought that the premise of the mother actually being a tranvestite would have clued somebody in. Maybe I should have added that the father was a drag king, but that would have made them a male/female couple.

As far as "Adam and Steve", the idea was that there is no feminine name (that I can think of ) that rhymes with "Eve". The best hope would be that we see a sudden trend of parents naming their female children Cleve.

Sorry to get everyone worked up so early in the morning.

Genevieve.

The point isn't that same-sex parents are better, but that opposite-sex parents are not, as the right wingers would have us believe, all a child needs to thrive. A child needs sane parents, first off. Their sexuality really doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

Mmmm Fig Newtons!

Genevieve doesn't rhyme with "Eve". Hmm. Maybe "Janice Van Cleve". But shouldn't it rhyme with "Adam"? Anyways, I love the "Adam and Steve" comparison; it's terrific, and I wish every Kristian Kook would use it publicly every day.

Rielle, I thought about Genevieve, but that didn't scan right. Isn't there a term for that sort of rhyme, where you just add on to an existing word, rather than find a new word? I seem to remember something like that from college, but that was back in the Bronze Age.

I'm not sure what that type of rhyme is called, actually.

This is an interesting read:

http://futureofthewhirled.com/gay_marriage_and_the_bible

Within the context of homosexuality, it discusses how the Scripture should not be taken literally. I especially enjoyed the part about how the Bible says it's okay to stone a child who does not obey his or her parents.

The silliness of this thread may serve as notice to DS that his posting of horrendous situations due to het parenting is old and practically meaningless. As the majority of the population knows M/F parents will fuck you up in some way if not kill you. So, please, spare us the horror stories and whining. We know the drill.

Herethere:
You don't have the right to speak for all of us. I'm enjoying this.

If you don't like it, go post somewhere else.

Rights, that's what it's all about, right?

Zhan-vee-EVV, not JENN-uh-veev.

Fnarf - I'm sure there are some Genevieves who say it "JENN-uh-veev." It's true that this is the Anglo-cizing of the original pronounciation, but nonetheless it is still in circulation.

I could do a post like this three or four times a day, HereThere. I only do one every other month or so, which shows great—and uncharacteristic—restraint on my part.

I used to be interested until I realized I just didn't care.

And yet here you are.

The reason Dan's point is so important is that the recent state supreme court decision (anderson) held that the legislature could rationally find that there is a correlation between having married, opposite-sex parents and desireably-parented children. But when you consider that the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults committed against children are committed by their father or stepfather, it's hard to see how the legislature's position could have survived even rational-basis scrutiny. The point here is not that hetero parents are evil; it's that there is not one iota of evidence that gay parents are MORE evil. Since gay parents = more evil than hetero parents is the credo that gay marriage opponents build their cases on, pointing out at every turn the absurdity of that argument (knives in the infant's head from her lovely father) is actually a good tactic. Thanks, Dan.

Some Dyke: Using that logic, (that most instances of child abuse are commited by the father) wouldn't a child with two fathers then be twice as likely to be abused?

Except you don't convict people on logic, you convict them on facts. Your "logic" doesn't tell you anything at all. The abuse rates in various populations do, and they tell you that it isn't so.

I am not aware of one shred of evidence suggesting that gay men are as likely to molest or beat their children as heterosexual men are.

Exactly my point. Gay parents are much less likely to abuse children, owing partly to the fact that they have to go through a lot more to even have kids.

The point is that it is ridiculous to deny healthy, sane, loving gay couples the right to marry and adopt in the name of the child's best interest when so many legal, hetero parents do shit like this on a regular basis.

These posts are even more relevant when they pertain to adopted children.

Adam and Eve

Steve and Edie

Steve and Steve

Children are our future.

There is an overwhelming case to be made that allowing two WOMEN to adopt is also forbidden by scripture. It is no accident the Good Book says "Adam and Eve", not "MADAME and Eve".

OK, it's not great, but it's the best I could come up with.

Eric, you should go to the link I posted earlier on this thread. It first appeared on a progressive Christian site. It's about how the Scripture should not always be taken literally (or if so we would be allowed to stone children).

Why anyone, with a shred of compassion or GOD in their veins would let children whither and die while they would be loved and nurtured in a stable gay relatioship is beyond me.
The bible says lots of awful things. Leviticus, the wonderful book of rules, forbids women to enter a church after menstruation without a turtledove and a goat sacrifice. Also, dwarves are not allowed near the alter. Why don't you practice THOSE if you are going to be so damn " scripturally correct"?
I pray..that is right PRAY for the day all children can be loved by PEOPLE.
THE END

I was trying to come up with little ditty of equivalent banality to the tired old "Adam and Steve", but this time for lesbians. My own take on it is, if there is support in the bible for letting a child be raised by a same-sex couple that loves that child, then I say, good for the bible. If there isn't, then to hell with bible.

The point of these posts, for ye denser types out there and the uninitiated, is to refute the notion that a male-female parental unit is inherently good while a same-sex unit is inherently bad.

Notice how there aren't any crazy stories in the news of psychotic gay or lesbian parents doing horrible things to their children.

Also, my coworker made an observation about the Adam and Eve story, "So they were supposed to just hang out in this garden and... what? Walk around? They couldn't have sex, because they didn't know they were naked. And of course, they had the run of the place, except for ONE FRUIT. ONE FRUIT. And they couldn't keep their hands off it. I guess Adam was bored. What else were they supposed to do?!

"And the snake. Weren't there any other deadly animals in this garden? Why didn't the snake just BITE THEM if he was out to get them? Wouldn't that have been easier?"

Basically, it's a matter of society in 2006 taking a book of mythology written over 2000 years ago by Hebrew scribes, who had no knowledge of science or many things we take for granted today, as absolute fact.

well actually the old testament was written 4000-6000 years ago, and based on sumerian mythology. and interestingly some parts condone incest. but point being, if we were to follow the bible to the letter, we would have to stone everyone for one sin or another.

also, marraige was an institution based on contracts between families to secure wealth and property. to sell off daughters and ensure sons would inherit land and what not. it was some paternal ego thing to ensure their sons and not someone elses would inherit their wealth. so to spout on about sacred love and so on, and protection of children... well we all agree that the bible is an antiqueted moth eaten old book ... i'm sure God has more important things to get angry over like child sex slaves in thailand then a gay couple wanting to love a child and call it their own.

Agree. And again, the absurdity is that people in 2006 society are taking these texts as unquestionable fact.

Sure, draw some life lessons from some of the fables, but to the right, I say don't defend your hatred of gays and lesbians by quoting it verbatim. The books weren't written without prejudice.

Dan -
I'll also use a bit of restraint, and just say that my point wasn't much different than was made in the first post (granted, not made as nicely). My knee jerk reaction had to do with the image of the "news story" and that I didn't like hearing it used as spin. WE get enough spin on war and rights issues from OUR government. Apart from that objection, I think your
point IS very important and fully understand the argument and agree.

Can you imagine what would happen if (in some alternate universe) a married gay couple had the same thing happen?

Plz to be pointing out a gay couple that has done something like this.

When I was just a little boy I somehow wondered into one of those creepy films about the Book of Revelations that predicted the world would end in the next six months (they were suprisingly popular in the 70's, along with the proof of bigfoot movies)

Anyway, I was seriously terrified by it (that's what you get for letting your kids select their own movies) so my parents took me to talk to our parish priest.

Father Kennedy was a very nice and very smart old man. He basically told me that nobody knew what Revelations was about, and that since most of the Bible had been messed with so much, by so many people, with so many political agendas, that it should never be taken literally: the lessons that we can take from it are much more important.

Though I long ago left my Catholicism behind, I always remember what Father Kennedy told me, and am thankful for his honesty and integrity - and for taking the terrors of a seven year old seriously.

Every young lad needs a queer mentor.

(signed) Mike Lowry via Jesse Dirkhising www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026