Is God not entitled to take a parent's life?

[Smoke]

Do you think the baby should be tossed out with the bathwater, as they say?

No, but not all dirty water has a baby in it, either. Even if it does, I'm not much inclined to take instructions from the baby, either. The more I think about it, the more I like your analogy.

 

[Starfish]

No, but not all dirty water has a baby in it, either. Even if it does, I'm not much inclined to take instructions from the baby, either. The more I think about it, the more I like your analogy.

Now I've forgotten what the original question was . . . oh yes, is God entitled to take a parent's life?
Yes. He's God.

 

[Smoke]

Now I've forgotten what the original question was . . . oh yes, is God entitled to take a parent's life?
Yes. He's God.

And when he does, he has demonstrated very effectively that he does not, in fact, wish for all children to grow up with a mother and a father.

 

[Starfish]

And when he does, he has demonstrated very effectively that he does not, in fact, wish for all children to grow up with a mother and a father.

I think we're about to go full circle.
God will do what he will do. But for us, we are responsible to do our best for our children. And our best is to provide them with a mom and a dad, married, living in one home, raising the children together, IF POSSIBLE.

BTW, I love your picture of the power lines!

 

[rocka21]

And when he does, he has demonstrated very effectively that he does not, in fact, wish for all children to grow up with a mother and a father.

How come its " God " that took the parents life? Ever heard of the Devil?

 

[Smoke]

How come its " God " that took the parents life? Ever heard of the Devil?

Can the devil do anything without god's consent? Is he more powerful than god?

Anyway, it seems far more likely that the death would be caused by god. In the whole Bible, the devil only killed ten people, while god killed two million, thirty-eight thousand, three hundred forty-four people. If a person is killed by either god or the devil, there's only a one-half of one thousandth of one percent chance that it was the devil. For purposes of comparison, that's less than a fortieth of your chance of being struck by lightning at some time during your life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now I've forgotten what the original question was . . . oh yes, is God entitled to take a parent's life?
Yes. He's God.

But He's not entitled to place a child in a home headed by a same-sex couple?

 

[kdrier]

"And it's acceptable for that "door" to take the form of death, but not homosexuality?"

That door can and sometimes will be homosexuality, not sure what you are referring too...?

What can we infer of God's intent if we assume that it was He who placed both attraction for the same sex and the desire to raise a family in the minds of same-sex couples?

I'm not a christian per say, but I'm under the impression that are creator(s) are not perfect, and sometimes there is flaws in it's designs. What I can infer about "god" is that he created just as many means of suffering in this world as means of happiness. There is a balance to life. "luckily" Humans are getting to the point where we can play god in ways, such as artificial insemination, coloning body parts and sheep and probably all kinds of things, giving humans bionic body parts, the list goes on. and yes, god did give us enough intelligence to do these things, just like he gave us the ability to murder, rape, and pillage, does that give us the right to do them just because it might make us happy? You be the judge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"And it's acceptable for that "door" to take the form of death, but not homosexuality?"

That door can and sometimes will be homosexuality, not sure what you are referring too...?

Just the idea that seems to permeate these sorts of discussions that it might be part of God's divine plan for a parent to die, but it could never be part of that plan for a same-sex couple to raise a family.

What can we infer of God's intent if we assume that it was He who placed both attraction for the same sex and the desire to raise a family in the minds of same-sex couples?

I'm not a christian per say, but I'm under the impression that are creator(s) are not perfect, and sometimes there is flaws in it's designs. What I can infer about "god" is that he created just as many means of suffering in this world as means of happiness. There is a balance to life.

Fair enough, but why conclude that being raised by lesbians should be on the "suffering" side of the balance?

"luckily" Humans are getting to the point where we can play god in ways, such as artificial insemination, coloning body parts and sheep and probably all kinds of things, giving humans bionic body parts, the list goes on. and yes, god did give us enough intelligence to do these things, just like he gave us the ability to murder, rape, and pillage, does that give us the right to do them just because it might make us happy? You be the judge.

Our ability to do something doesn't make it right, and whether something makes a person happy is a very small part of whether it's a good idea. The characteristics of the action itself determine whether it's right or wrong to do so. Murder, rape and pillaging cause horrible harm, and are therefore wrong. What harm do you think that same-sex parenting would cause?

 

[kdrier]

Just the idea that seems to permeate these sorts of discussions that it might be part of God's divine plan for a parent to die, but it could never be part of that plan for a same-sex couple to raise a family.

Our plan yes. I do not think "god" plans on having homosexuals having children, as he did not give them the ability to reproduce, perhaps he intends on them raising children in some situations though.

"Fair enough, but why conclude that being raised by lesbians should be on the "suffering" side of the balance?"

I never made such accusations.

Our ability to do something doesn't make it right, and whether something makes a person happy is a very small part of whether it's a good idea. The characteristics of the action itself determine whether it's right or wrong to do so. Murder, rape and pillaging cause horrible harm, and are therefore wrong. What harm do you think that same-sex parenting would
cause?

I have no problem with same sex parenting, the only arugment I've made on the subject is that I believe a traditional family is more suited given the parameters are equal, of which I assumed was common sense, but that's just my unsupported opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Our plan yes. I do not think "god" plans on having homosexuals having children, as he did not give them the ability to reproduce, perhaps he intends on them raising children in some situations though.

One of the main reasons why a heterosexual couple might pursue adoption is infertility... i.e. they do not have the ability to reproduce. Are you arguing that we should exclude any couple from adopting children if they can't have children of their own?

It'd create a situation like Seinfeld's stand-up routine about trying to get a loan from the bank ("Can I have some money?" "Well, do you have any money?" "No, that's why I'm here." "If you don't have any money, then we can't give you any."), but it seems like that's the implication of your argument.

If lack of ability to have children directly can be assumed to be an indication of God's intent, what should we do with those heterosexual couples for whom, it seems, God made an extraordinary, specific effort to keep them childless? If He goes out of His way to render a heterosexual couple infertile, shouldn't we take that as a message that He really, really doesn't want that couple to have kids?

And if you don't think that lack of ability to have children should be a factor in the decision as to whether opposite-sex couples should adopt, why do you think it should be in the case of same-sex couples?

"Fair enough, but why conclude that being raised by lesbians should be on the "suffering" side of the balance?"

I never made such accusations.

I think you implied it. When I asked you what we could infer from God's plan from the fact that there are homosexual people in this world who want to raise children. In response, you stated:

What I can infer about "god" is that he created just as many means of suffering in this world as means of happiness. There is a balance to life.

It seems from your previous posts that you weren't placing same-sex couples raising children on the "happiness" side of the balance... that leaves only the "suffering" side.

But if you meant something else, please feel free to re-state your position.

I have no problem with same sex parenting, the only arugment I've made on the subject is that I believe a traditional family is more suited given the parameters are equal, of which I assumed was common sense, but that's just my unsupported opinion.

I think, perhaps, that in many places a same-sex couple (and by extension, their children) would have a more difficult time than an opposite-sex one... however, I think the same would have been true for an interracial couple a few decades ago, and I wouldn't consider other people's prejudice as a proper factor in either case.

 

[kdrier]

Are you arguing that we should exclude any couple from adopting children if they can't have children of their own?

No, I have not argued that at all. I think anyone willing to adopt a child should be allowed to.

I have no problem with same sex parenting, the only arugment I've made on the subject is that I believe a traditional family is more suited given the parameters are equal, of which I assumed was common sense, but that's just my unsupported opinion.

It seems from your previous posts that you weren't placing same-sex couples raising children on the "happiness" side of the balance... that leaves only the "suffering" side

No sir, I don't believe that place a child in a homosexual home is suffering, have you read anything I said? When I said "god" made a balance to life, I ment just that, I wasn't placing homosexual adoption in any category. I don't think god intended anything, he just set up the pins and let us knock them down. People are born retarded, diseased, physically handicap, you name it, we were not constructed to be perfect, we were just constructed.

 

[kdrier]

I should note, some of those things did not directly intend. He made it possible for people to kill, but he might not intend that. He gave male and female sexual organs, so he intended on them having children... as far as raising the children, that's another story.

 

[Smoke]

Our plan yes. I do not think "god" plans on having homosexuals having children, as he did not give them the ability to reproduce

Are you under the impression that homosexuals are sterile, or that we don't reproduce quite often?

 

[kdrier]

I'm saying two males or two females can not possibly produce a child together, but that's obvious lol. You can beat around the bush all day on that one, that's just a law of physics.

 

[Smoke]

I'm saying two males or two females can not possibly produce a child together, but that's obvious lol. You can beat around the bush all day on that one, that's just a law of physics.

Nevertheless, we reproduce quite often. Saying that a homosexual can't reproduce is like saying that a Christian can't drive a car. "Well, obviously, you can't get a car in the church, and the aisles are too narrow anyway." But a Christian doesn't have to drive his car in church, does he? There is no reason why the biological parent of your child must also be your closest companion, and you don't need homosexuals to know that. Plenty of heterosexuals have chosen partners other than the biological parents of their children, too.

 

[Draka]

I'm saying two males or two females can not possibly produce a child together, but that's obvious lol. You can beat around the bush all day on that one, that's just a law of physics.

You know, this reminds me of one soap I watch. Last year they had on a guy who was beginning the transformation into becoming a woman. When she talked to the doctor about the gender reassignment surgery the doctor recommended banking some sperm before going through with it. So the option of still having children existed for her. Now, she considered herself to be a lesbian woman. So...if she were to go through with the surgery, become physically female, get involved with another woman, they could have her partner artificially inseminated with her banked sperm. Therefore...two women could have a biological child together...ta daaaaa.

Gotta love them soaps.

 

[Starfish]

Nevertheless, we reproduce quite often. Saying that a homosexual can't reproduce is like saying that a Christian can't drive a car. "Well, obviously, you can't get a car in the church, and the aisles are too narrow anyway." But a Christian doesn't have to drive his car in church, does he? There is no reason why the biological parent of your child must also be your closest companion, and you don't need homosexuals to know that. Plenty of heterosexuals have chosen partners other than the biological parents of their children, too.

Are you thinking of the child here? That child will age, become an adult, and want to know where they came from. They will want to know the person who donated the sperm. And they'll have that right.

Adoption is a wonderful and noble thing and I wish there was a lot more of it because of the overly large number of single-parent households. But to purposely bring a child into the world just so you can fulfill your own maternal yearnings, while denying them of a father (or mother), is not thinking of the child's needs first.

 

[kdrier]

wow, I can't even argue some of these points because they are so unbelievable.

"You know, this reminds me of one soap I watch. Last year they had on a guy who was beginning the transformation into becoming a woman. When she talked to the doctor about the gender reassignment surgery the doctor recommended banking some sperm before going through with it. So the option of still having children existed for her. Now, she considered herself to be a lesbian woman. So...if she were to go through with the surgery, become physically female, get involved with another woman, they could have her partner artificially inseminated with her banked sperm. Therefore...two women could have a biological child together...ta daaaaa"

He was born a man, but crazy enough to want to be a women, people like that should not be allowed to reproduce more wacked out children. It's disgusting in my OPINION.

Midnight: It is Impossible for two people born of the same sex to have a child together, this is something you learn in elementary school. Sure they can raise a child together or maybe they can get an artificially developed child, seeing as they want a kid who will wonder who his real father is for the rest of his life and wonder why he has two mommies. But hey, whatever is best for the kids.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you thinking of the child here? That child will age, become an adult, and want to know where they came from. They will want to know the person who donated the sperm. And they'll have that right.

Not legally in a lot of places. Many jurisdictions have decided that the donor's right to privacy trumps the child's right to know.

Adoption is a wonderful and noble thing and I wish there was a lot more of it because of the overly large number of single-parent households.

Back up one second: it seems like you're implying that the best thing for single parents to do would be to give their children up for adoption. Is this really your positon? :sarcastic

But to purposely bring a child into the world just so you can fulfill your own maternal yearnings, while denying them of a father (or mother), is not thinking of the child's needs first.

Hmm. And I think that indoctrinating a child into a religion before he or she reaches the age of reason is not thinking of the child's needs first. If you get to make the decisions for the gay and lesbian couples, can I get to decide for the Catholic and Mormon ones?

Just out of curiousity, what other criteria do you have, besides genetalia of the parents, for what makes a "proper" family environment?

Is it not "thinking of the child's needs first" to raise children when the parents won't be able to afford to send them to college? Perhaps we should have an income requirement.

Is it not "thinking of the child's needs first" to raise children without green space outdoors to play? Maybe we should require big city residents to move to the country before they have kids.

Does the ideal family have a dog? Maybe we should require prospective parents to have allergy tests.

What religion are the parents in the ideal family?

Just curious... after all, if we're going to set up the law based on what you see as the ideal family, we might as well go all the way, right?