mr.guy
crapsack
Not even. I'm pretty sure i was born knowing how to do that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gay adoption is good for children
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Smoke
Done here.
But you do treat people with disrespect -- not just homosexuals, but also every heterosexual who doesn't share your religion -- when you assert that your religious views should be written into the law of the land.
Well, then, I'm sure you'd have no objection if the non-Mormon Christians were to take the same approach. Understanding that from their perspective Mormonism is a dangerous deviation from God's truth, I'm sure you'd have no objective if they took steps to ban Mormonism, right? If you feel the need to impose your religious views on everybody, then isn't it only right that everybody should do the same?
Smoke
Done here.
That's pretty impressive. When I was first born, I didn't even know my name, much less how to write it -- in the snow or elsewhere.
mr.guy
crapsack
Well, generally speaking, i'm pretty impressive.
Smoke
Done here.
I've noticed that before.
Scott C.
Just one guy
I believe the best family model includes a father and a mother who love each other, love their children, and do their best to provide for their children’s physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs. I do realize, however, that in millions of cases this model can’t be followed, through no fault of the parent(s). A spouse may die, a spouse may abandon the family, etc. Such events do not diminish from the innocent parent’s fitness to parent. These events might even increase the single parent’s determination to succeed. There are millions of examples, I am sure, where children raised by someone other than a father and a mother will attest to the love, goodness, and effectiveness of the parent who raised them. This is a tribute to the determination and love of those who were put in a difficult circumstance and who overcame the obstacles that life dealt them. I admire and respect such individuals. If I ever found myself as a single parent, I would pray that the Lord would give me the strength to do it alone and that He would somehow compensate for the loss of my wife and mother of our children.
The facts above do not justify society or the individual in intentionally abandoning the best family model of a father and a mother. A single woman, who thinks her children don’t need a father, and so intentionally becomes pregnant to raise her children alone, is doing her children a disservice. Gay and lesbian couples that believe that their potential adopted children don’t need a father and a mother, are doing those children a disservice. Married couples with children, who divorce when it is not necessary, do their children a disservice. (There are clearly many examples of when divorce is necessary).
I see two distinct, but related, questions being raised in this thread. Does the best family model include a father and a mother? If the answer is yes, what circumstances, if any, warrant placing children in a home that does not have a father and a mother?
As far as the second question is concerned, I believe that if there are not enough willing and qualified fathers and mothers to go around, we need to find alternate ways to care for children without parents. That is clear.
On the first question, our entire society is based on the concept of the family, with fathers and mothers. This was not by accident. It is by divine design. Children need the role models and nurturing that are uniquely provided by fathers and mothers of different sexes. This is why nature provides that human reproduction only occurs between the opposite sexes. There is much data to indicate that children raised without fathers or mothers in the home are more likely to have problems as adolescents and adults.
These beliefs motivate me to oppose adoption into families without fathers and mothers, unless it is absolutely necessary to do otherwise. My motivation is the welfare of children. It’s ok for me to advocate policy that I believe is in the best interest of the children. The fact that there is wide disagreement on the subject, and the fact that my view is motivated by religion, does not mean that I should not take a stand on public policy.
Most of our laws are based on religious belief. If there were no God, there would be no love. If there were no love, there would be no sense of remorse for harming others. There would be no empathy. If there were no love and empathy, there would be no laws to protect others. Stealing and murder and rape would all be legal. So, we legislate according to our God given sense of right and wrong all of the time. I’m certainly not suggesting that atheists are devoid of love and empathy. To the contrary, I suggest that the love and empathy they possess comes from the God in whom they do not believe.
So, when we legislate against murder, we are legislating our religion. Some may say, no, we know murder is wrong and hurtful independent of religion. I argue that no, the only reason we know it is wrong is because of the conscience God planted in our hearts – and that is religion. Without God, there is no right and wrong.
So, I can’t only take a stand on policy that is unrelated to my religious views. My entire sense of right and wrong and what is harmful to others and why we should not hurt others, is based on my religious views. I admit that this point does not prove that I’m right about gay and lesbian adoption, but it does prove that I have the right to take a stand on public policy, which is motivated by religious belief. We all do the same thing, whether we realize it or not.
Smoke
Done here.
So, if your circumstances dictated it, you would abandon your own "best family model" and raise your children under circumstances you believe to be harmful, rather than give them to a nice married couple to raise. Why shouldn't anybody else abandon the same model if their circumstances dictate -- especially since it's your model, not theirs?
If you have data showing that children brought up by two men or two women are more likely to have problems than children brought up by one man and one woman, I suggest you produce it now.
I wonder why his people are so hateful, then.
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
I completely agree with Scott C. Of course no one should uproot children from the home and family they know to be raised the "best family model". This is a ridiculous statement. You know we're not saying this.
Children need good role models. Children need to learn how a good man behaves and how a good woman behaves. Often children will model their perception of God, their Heavenly Father, after their earthly father. Daughters are better prepared to chose a good man for a husband, if they were raised by a good man as their dad. They learn what qualities to look for. Sons obviously need the influence of a good father because there are issues that we women just do not have. This simply is common sense.
I resent being called hateful. I try to see both sides. I totally acknowledge that gay people can have all the qualities of a loving parent. I have no doubt that many gay people surpass me in many ways, through talents, personalities, etc. There is no hate here and you have no right to accuse us of this. We have firm beliefs and we stand by them, because we believe in a higher intelligence than that of any of us on this earth.
mr.guy
crapsack
Which is all the reason one needs to disregard it.
Smoke
Done here.
In what ways, specifically, is a good man good in ways that a woman cannot be good? In what ways, specifically, is a good woman good in ways that a man cannot be good? What virtues, specifically, are proper to one sex and not the other?
Yes, I know. The problem isn't that you're a bigot, the problem is that people like me just won't accept the "fact" that we're inferior to to people like you.
That's okay with me. I only have a problem when you expect me to stand by your beliefs.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, to be fair, the analogy would be that Starfish could practice his Mormonism, but would not be the preferred choice as an adoptive parent, as long as non-Mormon parents were available.
Jistyr
Inquisitive Youngin'
A traditional family model does not mean the best family model. Simply saying something is better because that is the way it has always been, is not only fruitless, but often dangerous.
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
Are you referring to amending the Constitution--marriage between a man and a women? This is the law as it has been for over 200 years in our country. This country began under a religious, Biblical influence. The belief in God by our forefathers is well-established. (I believe that these men were placed on the earth at this time for this purpose.) This beginning was all about religious freedom and the LDS Church completely supports this. Religious freedom for all is written into our basic creed. And we aren't alone in this stand about marriage. The voting process has upheld this.
For the survival of a society, the preservation of the family--father, mother, children, is vital. Even though our best efforts may fall short of this, we can't give it up. It is the ideal to strive for and to protect.
McBell
Unbound
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Preservation of society requires nothing more than a shortage of idiots with weapons. Joe and Jack adopting a kid isn't going to cause the end of the world as we know it. The idiot who tries to kill Joe and Jack is.
mr.guy
crapsack
One thing i can report on from canada, is that since we've ruined our country with gay marriage it's become all the more boggling that arguments like those that fill this thread are the most compelling ones keeping it off the table for americans. It's really pretty amazing.
Smoke
Done here.
Then why don't you favor religious freedom? Why do you insist on imposing your religious views on people who don't share them?
Smoke
Done here.
I'll tell you what's destroying the United States, and it's not same-sex couples. It's rampant stupidity.
mr.guy
crapsack
The trick is to try and turn a profit on abundance.
Jistyr
Inquisitive Youngin'
The length of time that the law has been in place does not prove its decency in the slightest.
Our founding fathers were primarily Deists, and they certainly were not under Biblical influence. This fact is well-established. As George Washington clearly stated in the Tripoli Treaty: