Senator John McCain said he opposes allowing gay couples to adopt children, but his campaign clarified Tuesday that the Republican presidential candidate believes the issue should be left to states to decide following criticisms from gay rights groups.
The putative Republican presidential nominee had said in an interview published Sunday in the New York Times that he thinks it has been “proven that both parents are important in the success of a family.”
“[S]o, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption,” he stated.
McCain, who has an adopted a daughter with his wife, Cindy, said he wanted to encourage adoption, but that the adoptive parents should be a man and woman, or a traditional couple.
But after his statement drew criticisms from gay rights groups, his campaign issued a clarification statement.
“John McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue," Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “He was not endorsing any federal legislation."
McCain is opposed to same-sex “marriage” and endorsed a ballot initiative to overturn California’s state ruling that legalized the practice, but believes each state should decide how to define marriage, rather than the federal government.
Bounds said McCain was only expressing his “personal preference” that children be raised by a mother and father, but recognized there are cases of abandoned children who have no caretaker.
“John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative,” Bounds said, without elaborating if McCain believes a gay couple adopting a child is better than the child remaining in the orphanage.
The Republican candidate has been carefully treading between constituencies in an effort to avoid offending his diverse body of support. Although touting his conservative stance on abortion and gay “marriage” to values voters, McCain often seems hesitant to declare his position on these issues when in a more moderate crowd for fear of offending potential voters.
McCain will need the support of Republican voters as well as independents to beat Democrat rival Barack Obama.
RSS
"This is why Jesus stayed away from quoting the Scriptures "
I think He DID quote scripture to people who claimed to 'know' (most often religious leaders). But He just as often, if not more often, used parables to teach.
"I would prefer one good statement of grace over 1,000 statements of anything else"
I would agree, as long as that statement did not fly in the face of scripture. But often, when we do NOT use Scripture, we slowly walk away from its teaching. Also, God's words are much more effective than mine.
I think we need to share scripture, but then give an application, an example, or tie it in with the subject at hand - this is the wisdom of which you wrote. But as I said, there are times when its more effective (especially among people who claim Christ) to use just the word of God.
The bottom line then is that we shall know them by their fruits. I'm not assigning motive. I've just been around the block enough times to recognize what motive clearly goes with what action. It is the action that shows legalism vs. grace. This is why Jesus stayed away from quoting the Scriptures because it was what the religious leaders did and it would have been viewed as legalism. It doesn't work on people who have been beat up with legalism. They become numb to it.
This was my point all along. If it looks like a duck.... If it looks like legalism.... The point here is to bring wisdom vs. knowledge. After 35 years in the ministry I can honestly say I would prefer one good statement of grace over 1,000 statements of anything else. Grace brings life. Legalism brings arguement. Beware of those who love to argue....
Daniel Paul,
you wrote, "Interesting statement. Is sin a matter of motive, action or nature?"
ooo! GOOD discussion point.
Let's see. Obviously, our hearts/minds is where sin begins:
Mark 7:20-21
20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
And obviosuly we can have impure motives:
1 Thessalonians 2:3
For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you.
But we have a sinful nature:
Romans 7:21-25
21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to Godâ
"Man, you really like to assign motive. "
Interesting statement. Is sin a matter of motive, action or nature?
"Many a Christian like to list Scripture after Scripture to show someone is 'more of a sinner' then they are. It's quite judgemental."
Man, you really like to assign motive. Could it be that people quote scripture because we believe that God's word is effective?
"The truth is simple. We are all sinners just as sinful in the eyes of God as the next. Jesus loved each of us to die in our place so we don't have to go to hell. If we give Him our death in sin and take His life then we live and are free in Him"
We agree! :) Its all about Christ. We're all sinners, and no sin is worse or better than any other.
Quite right believer. Many a Christian like to list Scripture after Scripture to show someone is 'more of a sinner' then they are. It's quite judgemental.
The truth is simple. We are all sinners just as sinful in the eyes of God as the next. Jesus loved each of us to die in our place so we don't have to go to hell. If we give Him our death in sin and take His life then we live and are free in Him.
It just doesn't really get more simple. It is my hope that people can really grasp the concept that Christ is the difference between Christians and non. Then we can accept that sinners (even homosexuals) are no worse than we are and in need of a savior.
hlerwin, your thought is not trite at all, after all Christ said unless we have the simple faith of a child we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Sometimes we in the Christian tend to complicate the truths of God's Word for not only believers, but especially for non-believers.
"I have found that which is lost in the complex is defined by simplicity."
This is the way I think about things, too. It's trite, but all the great truths deep down are "simple."
I really am a simpleton at heart. My Pastor laughed when I made that comment to him but I really do view myself that way. I have found that which is lost in the complex is defined by simplicity.
As to the question that's not a question...Jesus said that which is not for us is against us and that which is not against us if for us. A servant doesn't questions the word of his Master. That's the way He called it...it's good enough for me.
The problem I think you're getting at is the age old tradition of doing what you want and tagging God to it. I have never found the Bible to be all the complicated or unclear (somehow needing interpretation). One of the reasons a child can program your VCR when you can't is because they look at the instructions from a simplistic point of view. We get lost in all the details. The same can be said of the Bible.
Read-do...how much more simple, eh? "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." Read-do, repeat....
Valid points, DP, but other sincere readers make other points. Am I to assume that they are in the grasp of Satan, or that they are "promoting the homosexual agenda?" Haven't conservative Bible readers promoted the Christian agenda for centuries? (Not a real question to you from me. I just kept typing too long!)
hlerwin - there's no foundation to base the homosexual assumption on. It would be pure work of fiction. In fact, by the law they would have both stoned. It didn't matter who they were.
Also, I Samuel 18:1-4 paints a very differend picture. It talks about their souls being knit together. I have one or two brothers like that. People actually ask us if we are brothers (as in the same mother).
vs. 4 was a traditional symbol of recognition. Having the robe and armor made David as important as Johnathan in many peoples eyes. He became as a brother that day.
I have just reread the scripture about David and Jonathan. I have never even heard before that some readers consider the relationship of these two men to homosexual. (Where have I been?) Anyway, it does not seem too far fetched to me that these men's love was sexual. But, of course, I do not recoil in horror when confronted with gay men or women lovers. Ithink many people in our society do recoil. So, for them, to hear that David and Jonathan might have been lovers is like hearing unbelievable and condemning news about a person who had always been held in very high esteem. The ordinary American who learned about the Bible in the average Sunday school class simple cannot process the new information. I do not assert that Jonathan and David were lovers, but I would not be horrified to learn that that was, in fact, the case. There is too much middle class American culture in today's Christianity.
James 4:4 "Unfaithful people! Don't you know that to be the world's friend means to be God's enemy? If you want to be the world's friend, you make yourself God's enemy."
Now here is the site i came across doing research not to long back. Here is the link that some have been asking on the movie being made on the lie of David's and Johnathan's homosexual relationship. You see there are 'church's' that believe such blasphemy that its hard to comprehend, but its all to justify themselves. Read the whole page but start where the link takes you. Its a satanic church. They preach a false Gospel and lead many to damnation. Its my 'Job' if you will my Gift of the Spirit and my Ministry given unto me by God to expose all those who lead others astray, to stand against them, and yes Debate them. And Jesus did 'whoop' on them in yahoo and many other sites!
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2122#Pt3
this is the metropolitan 'church'
1Corinthians 3:16 Surely you know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you!
1Co 3:17 God will destroy anyone who destroys God's temple. For God's temple is holy, and you yourselves are his temple.
1Co 3:18 You should not fool yourself. If any of you think that you are wise by this world's standards, you should become a fool, in order to be really wise.
1Co 3:19 For what this world considers to be wisdom is nonsense in God's sight. As the scripture says, "God traps the wise in their cleverness";
1Co 3:20 and another scripture says, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are worthless."
hlerwin - I don't care if you or anyone spams their stuff. if I see that I have read it before then I'll just skip your post and go to the next. No need for hostility.
I am entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to your. This is a free country so far and each person should be allowed to express their opinion even if it rubs someone wrong. Though as Christians we should try to be tactful in expresing our opinions.
star2, risking accusations of spamming, I'll c&p my comment on "Mass. Senate" site:
Some of you folks are going to have to get over thinking that the only "true" reading of the scriptures comes out of the Baptist publishing houses in Nashville, Tennessee, or from the Moody Bible Institute or some Dutch Reform part of Michigan. I have never thought of Jonathan and David's relationship as anything but close, close friends. If it is incorrect that their affection was homosexual, maybe it's good for Ang Lee to bring out that other point of view. Let it be refuted in the ensuing discussion. Following "Brokeback Mountain," many testimonies of homosexual cowboy relationships certainly came out. (No pun intended....)