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

[w00t]

In the UK children now have a right to know who donated the egg or sperm.

 

[Starfish]

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.


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


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?

Whether the law gives them that right or not, many will still want to know. Apparently there are registries so that if both parties are willing, they can get in touch. And many have done this and have established a relationship.

If a women gets pregnant while single, in most cases it would be best for the child to let it be adopted into a two-parent, married, home. This is putting the child's needs first. The statistics of children who struggle because of being raised by a single mother are huge. Many are successfully raised; however, a child without a father is at a disadvantage to one with a father.
(Please don't rant about some fathers being lousy fathers. This is talking about responsible loving parents. Abusive fathers is another subject for another thread.)

I'm not talking about religion of the parents here nor pet ownership. Just the need for a child to have a father and a mother. Both sexes play a very important role in a child's life. And you know there are more differences than genitalia.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not talking about religion of the parents here nor pet ownership. Just the need for a child to have a father and a mother. Both sexes play a very important role in a child's life. And you know there are more differences than genitalia.

Why not talk about things other than the orientation of the parents?

If your opinion of the "ideal" family arrangement is justification enough to deny same-sex couples the right to have a family on the grounds that they don't match this "ideal", how can you not apply the same justification to all cases that don't match your "ideal", whatever it is?

 

[Draka]

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.

Careful now...now you are showing your hate and prejudice for a whole other group of people.

 

[kdrier]

so be it, nothing I'm ashamed of.

 

[Draka]

so be it, nothing I'm ashamed of.

Wow, a lack of conscience, impressive.

 

[Starfish]

Why not talk about things other than the orientation of the parents?

If your opinion of the "ideal" family arrangement is justification enough to deny same-sex couples the right to have a family on the grounds that they don't match this "ideal", how can you not apply the same justification to all cases that don't match your "ideal", whatever it is?

Maybe it's just a matter of where to draw the line. I am definately influenced by my religion, but also by our society, the laws of our country, the way I was raised, and 50 years of living.

Legally we cannot limit the religion of parents, nor would I want to by any means. God created this world and placed us here with agency, or the right to choose. If we limit those choices, we lose our agency and one of the main purposes of life.
(Actually I'd like to enact a few laws, like not allowing an unmarried 16-yr-old to keep a baby, but that's another topic for another thread. Mostly just wishful thinking.)
But God gave us guidelines and marriage between a man and a women is one. Raising children within said marriage is another. Love, attention, and training your children is another. He also said homosexual behavior is wrong and the example we set to our children is huge.

 

[w00t]

Whether the law gives them that right or not, many will still want to know. Apparently there are registries so that if both parties are willing, they can get in touch. And many have done this and have established a relationship.

If a women gets pregnant while single, in most cases it would be best for the child to let it be adopted into a two-parent, married, home. This is putting the child's needs first. The statistics of children who struggle because of being raised by a single mother are huge. Many are successfully raised; however, a child without a father is at a disadvantage to one with a father.
(Please don't rant about some fathers being lousy fathers. This is talking about responsible loving parents. Abusive fathers is another subject for another thread.)

I'm not talking about religion of the parents here nor pet ownership. Just the need for a child to have a father and a mother. Both sexes play a very important role in a child's life. And you know there are more differences than genitalia.

You are joking? Adoption is a position of last resort! Many adopted children, even those adopted as babies have hang up as older children and adults. If a single mother can offer her child a loving home, that is best for her child!

 

[Starfish]

You are joking? Adoption is a position of last resort! Many adopted children, even those adopted as babies have hang up as older children and adults. If a single mother can offer her child a loving home, that is best for her child!

Studies and statistics are completely against what you're saying.

 

[w00t]

Studies and statistics are completely against what you're saying.

So you are saying that all single mothers should give up their children for adoption? That sounds like something from the dark ages!

 

[Smoke]

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.

Your opinion is tragically uninformed. I have to say in all honesty that 25 years ago I probably would have said the same thing, though. That was before I knew any transgendered people or understood anything about their situation. If you were to inform yourself, your opinion would change. If you were to actually get to know any transgendered people, you'd learn that they have more courage in their little fingers than you or I have in our whole bodies, and courage is a virtue in every culture. The ones I've known have been immensely strong people with very clear insight. They have to be, to survive the relentless persecution and marginalization they suffer not only at the hands of the general community, but often even at the hands of lesbians and gay men. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be deeply ashamed of yourself.

 

[Smoke]

The statistics of children who struggle because of being raised by a single mother are huge. Many are successfully raised; however, a child without a father is at a disadvantage to one with a father.

What you can't see, because you apparently refuse to see it, is that those data don't apply to children brought up by two mothers or two fathers. A single parent does have to struggle more than a couple, and it's easier for the parents and the child alike when there are two parents. Children bought up by same-sex couples do as well as couples brought up by opposite-sex couples. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. The only difficulty only unusual difficulty they face is from being told by people like you that they don't have a "real" family.

 

[Starfish]

So you are saying that all single mothers should give up their children for adoption? That sounds like something from the dark ages!

When an unwed women becomes pregnant, the first option should be to marry the father. If that is not a good option, then she should pursue adoption. (There are exceptions, this is for the majority.)
Every baby needs a father and mother, married, raising the child together. This is putting the child's needs first.

Personally, giving up a baby would rip my heart out. However, I can't think of me, I have to think of the child. There are many, many childless couples longing for children. They are capable of loving an adopted child every bit as much as the bio-parents. Maybe even moreso because of all they have to go through to adopt.
Open adoptions exist wherein the bio-mother can stay in touch.
As I said, every child deserves to be raised in a two-parent home and statistically, they are much better off. Put the children first.

 

[Starfish]

What you can't see, because you apparently refuse to see it, is that those data don't apply to children brought up by two mothers or two fathers. A single parent does have to struggle more than a couple, and it's easier for the parents and the child alike when there are two parents. Children bought up by same-sex couples do as well as couples brought up by opposite-sex couples. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. The only difficulty only unusual difficulty they face is from being told by people like you that they don't have a "real" family.

I agree that a single parent home is at a disadvantage in many ways to a two-parent gay couple. We've talked this all out in another thread concerning gay adoption, in General Religious Debates.

 

[Draka]

When an unwed women becomes pregnant, the first option should be to marry the father. If that is not a good option, then she should pursue adoption. (There are exceptions, this is for the majority.)
Every baby needs a father and mother, married, raising the child together. This is putting the child's needs first.

Personally, giving up a baby would rip my heart out. However, I can't think of me, I have to think of the child. There are many, many childless couples longing for children. They are capable of loving an adopted child every bit as much as the bio-parents. Maybe even moreso because of all they have to go through to adopt.
Open adoptions exist wherein the bio-mother can stay in touch.
As I said, every child deserves to be raised in a two-parent home and statistically, they are much better off. Put the children first.

So, do I fall into that majority??? Turk and I aren't married. We have 19 month old Jamie and I'm 16 weeks preggers. We haven't any plans at this time to even get married. So, do you think I should give up my son and my unborn baby for adoption?

 

[Starfish]

So, do I fall into that majority??? Turk and I aren't married. We have 19 month old Jamie and I'm 16 weeks preggers. We haven't any plans at this time to even get married. So, do you think I should give up my son and my unborn baby for adoption?

Marry the father . . . today.

 

[Draka]

Marry the father . . . today.

Why?

 

[Starfish]

Why?

Why not? If he's good enough to create children with, then he should be good enough to marry. You're committing your children to this man for the rest of their lives. Why aren't you making this commitment yourself? Give your children the stability and the statistically greater hope that you'll stay together till they're grown.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why?

Because otherwise, your baby on the way will never be able to ascend to the British throne, and...


um...


That's it. That's all I got.

 

[Draka]

Why not? If he's good enough to create children with, then he should be good enough to marry. You're committing your children to this man for the rest of their lives. Why aren't you making this commitment yourself? Give your children the stability and the statistically greater hope that you'll stay together till they're grown.

Who said anything about commitment, or lack thereof? Why do assume there would be no stability? And why do you assume there is a "statistically greater hope" attached to marriage? How many marriages end in divorce? There are lots of couples who stay together for years and years, for life even, that never get that peice of paper. Homosexuals in this country are forced into that now aren't they? And whether or not a couple gets married has no bearing on how long they stay together.