I have already disputed your statements before. Therefore you clearly are`t paying attention to what my arguments are about. I was only adding additional scenarios for you to understand how little does gender play in the morality of a person.

Reeeeaaaaallllyyy? So I guess I should never bother to explain to my sons that "no means no?" Any age girl is fair game? And if they get pregnant they should just run off and find someone else ASAP. I'll make sure my daughters never learn that by being irresponsible, she could be robbing her child of a chance to have a decent father and a whole family. It is better to go around tracking down 15 different men for paternity tesets just hoping for some child support.

This statement dose`t even make sense. The topic is about homosexuals being involved in adoption not straight people letting their children be adopted. The moment for an example your child gives your grandchild to the orphanage as per your statement, there is no certainty that your grandchild would have a decent home even with straight people. As for your daughter`s case what if she is`t just ready? Would you rather risk her and her child`s future just to be a family even though they would only end up in poverty?

True. People are only brave enough to make arguments on how wrong that person is but when it comes to doing anything they just don't care.

Obviously you are a narrow minded person. You said it yourself that being educated and straight does`t have to do anything with each other therefore why restrict an educated homosexual to adopt if they are worthy to do so.

Let me make another example that even a person like you can understand. Who would you rather be with in a room, a straight murderer or a homosexual who has good morals? In these times gender is only a small factor in the thinking of man. Nurture plays a bigger role than a nature in the decisions of an individual in our society. Try improving your argument rather than putting stupid and moron in your arguments. You only sound like a sore loser.

Sexuality is only a small factor in teaching ethics. Maturity, educational attainment, experience and the like play a bigger role in teaching ethics. Would you rather have an illiterate straight couple rather than an educated homosexual couple who can provide you what you need?

I referred to the Torah since it was the one that contains the Genesis, the book where the moderator was referring to. I believe that the Torah was not written by Moses alone, I believe it was the Israelites who were with him that completed the task. He was attributed to the Torah because he was the Israelites` savior from Egypt which would probably explain his prominence in the chapters.

The Bible was written by Jews during their enslavement in Egypt therefore they still have some basis on what they write in their texts. Not all of them are insane.

If they can provide for the needs of the child and be able to shape them into good individuals then they are eligible to do so.

God did`t write the Bible. People inspired by him wrote it.

No since they are the proof of genetic or external diseases which affected the human body.

No since God is a being beyond capable understanding therefore his actions span beyond time we are capable of knowing and thus invalidates our own understanding of 'day'.

Obviously, prayer would not be enough to get what one wants. One must strive for it himself. Praying and believing is only a part of being Christian. Like everyone striving to achieve something, action must be taken what ever your belief may be.

Yes since Christianity does not denounce such acts as inappropriate. As long as he does not do harm to others then it can be done.