Religion and homosexuality

[Mr Cheese]

I do not understand how same sex parents are willing to put their selfishness aside for the benifit of children. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

I am not saying homosexuals cannot have a relationship - only that such a relationship will not make them parents. They can adopt but this is not a sustaining relationship that can continue on in generations. I have not said that they cannot have stewardship over children out of love. What I am saying is that the first responsibiliy is to biological parents and the first obligation for society to to biological parents. All that I have said is that we should not think things equal that are not.

I love children and I want the best for children. I believe the best for children is to be in a home with both biological parents that love each other and their children. If you do not agree than explain what is better and therefore a more enlightened demonstration of love.

Zadok

what a backward view...

children have been brought up in extended families for centuries if not millenia
by people with little or no direct genetic inherantance or hopes....

It takes more than semen and eggs to be a parent:sarcastic

but then, we look at the world today....maybe in today's society where ANYONE, no matter how awful, can be a parent....because its just a genital thing...

 

[Zadok]

Has the medical problem been resolved so that you can have children, or have you given up sexual relations and taken steps to end a pointless marriage?

I find this very condescending. This couple is making personal sacrifices beyond their selfish concerns for the benefit of children and in so doing putting aside various personal selfish desires in every way they possibly could that they could provide children a home and future generations for society. I do not find that any near as pointless as your remarks.

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

what a backward view...

children have been brought up in extended families for centuries if not millenia
by people with little or no direct genetic inherantance or hopes....

It takes more than semen and eggs to be a parent:sarcastic

but then, we look at the world today....maybe in today's society where ANYONE, no matter how awful, can be a parent....because its just a genital thing...

Wow you are very angry - I am sorry I cannot accomodate such anger. Why do you hate biological parents raising children out of love? Please explain - perhaps your own parents did not like you?

Zadok

 

[Tristesse]

Wow you are very angry - I am sorry I cannot accomodate such anger. Why do you hate biological parents raising children out of love? Please explain - perhaps your own parents did not like you?

Zadok

No one hates biological parents, The point is, that sometimes thats not an option. I'm not sure I ever want kids, but I might want to get married sometime, should I not be allowed to marry based on the fact that I never want kids?

 

[Smoke]

I find this very condescending.

That's because it is. It's condescending, degrading, insulting, and totally uncalled-for.
And that is precisely how you and LittleNipple and the whole anti-gay crowd address us. That's the point.

Do you get it yet?

 

[Smoke]

Wow you are very angry - I am sorry I cannot accomodate such anger. Why do you hate biological parents raising children out of love?

Why do you hate gay parents raising children out of love?
Why don't you want their children to have the same legal protections the children of straight people have?

Can you understand why we find your anger and hatred inexcusable?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not understand how same sex parents are willing to put their selfishness aside for the benifit of children. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

I don't understand your question. Why would you think that when a same-sex couple raises children, it's somehow based in "selfishness"?

I love children and I want the best for children. I believe the best for children is to be in a home with both biological parents that love each other and their children. If you do not agree than explain what is better and therefore a more enlightened demonstration of love.

I think you're creating a false dichotomy. When a same-sex couple adopts a child, the option of having that child in a home with both biological parents has already disappeared. Same with when a person in a same-sex relationship has children from a previous opposite-sex relationship.

Even when a same-sex couple has a child through artificial insemination, the option never existed for that child to live in a home with opposite-sex biological parents.

I find this very condescending. This couple is making personal sacrifices beyond their selfish concerns for the benefit of children and in so doing putting aside various personal selfish desires in every way they possibly could that they could provide children a home and future generations for society. I do not find that any near as pointless as your remarks.

I think that Smoke's question logically flows out of the position that LittleNipper has been arguing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Zadok, this bit is key:

Why don't you want their children to have the same legal protections the children of straight people have?

Regardless of what you think the ideal situation is, same-sex couples do have children. Short of physically ripping those children out of their families and placing them in opposite-sex parented families (and even in that case, they won't have the "home with both biological parents that love each other and their children" that you say you want), they will always have same-sex parents regardless of what the law says.

As much as it offends you, these children will continue to live in same-sex parented families and will still need all the normal things that children need. Given that, you have to ask yourself whether it's better to give those children the same legal protections and benefits that other children receive or not.

 

[Zadok]

Why do you hate gay parents raising children out of love?
Why don't you want their children to have the same legal protections the children of straight people have?

Can you understand why we find your anger and hatred inexcusable?

All that I have said is that I am for biological parents raising their children out of love and that I believe that society has an obligation to support that. I have stated that I believe this is what is best for society and children. I have stated that I do not think anything else is as good or is the same. You have assumed everything else and have argued with me for every point that I have made in support of loving biological parents – you have attacked me for this position -- what else am I to think but that you do not support loving biological parents?

Zadok

 

[Autodidact]

But, they may still have a child.

I do not understand how same sex parents are willing to put their selfishness aside for the benifit of children. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Well, we care about our children, and do our best to take care of them, placing their own needs ahead of our own, like any good parent.

Furthermore, unlike heterosexuals, we don't have children until we are ready and able to care for them.

I am not saying homosexuals cannot have a relationship - only that such a relationship will not make them parents.

Yup. So what? (I often find that Mormons are so hung up on reproduction that it colors their entire world view. Yes, I didn't get my kids by having sex with a man. Yes, I have kids. Yes, I'm a good parent to them. These facts are unrelated.

They can adopt but this is not a sustaining relationship that can continue on in generations.

Why not? Are you opposed to adoption for some reason? For me, having children is not primarily about carrying on my genetic line; it's about a loving, caring, parental relationship that will help the child. I don't care whether my genes are propagated or not. It happens that they are, but that wasn't the point for me.

I have not said that they cannot have stewardship over children out of love. What I am saying is that the first responsibiliy is to biological parents and the first obligation for society to to biological parents.

And I am saying that is a pile of baloney. The first concern of society is its children, not its parents.

All that I have said is that we should not think things equal that are not.

They're equal in the respect that matters. Just as adoptive parents should be given the same respect and protection as biological parents, so should gay parents be given the same respect and protection as straight parents.

I love children and I want the best for children. I believe the best for children is to be in a home with both biological parents that love each other and their children.

You believe wrong.

If you do not agree than explain what is better and therefore a more enlightened demonstration of love.

Sure. It turns out that you're wrong. What kids need is parenting--good, consistent, caring, responsible parenting. That's what's best for kids. Same-sex parents do a wonderful job of providing this, and so make excellent parents. Existing research confirms this.

Now, are you planning to apologize for your outrageously bigoted smears?

 

[Autodidact]

I find this very condescending. This couple is making personal sacrifices beyond their selfish concerns for the benefit of children and in so doing putting aside various personal selfish desires in every way they possibly could that they could provide children a home and future generations for society. I do not find that any near as pointless as your remarks.

Zadok

I see. So you support gay parenting then, and are criticizing people who attack it?
Because I'm a gay parent, and that's what I'm doing. In particular, I'm doing it for a child who was not properly cared for by her irresponsible, selfish, heterosexual parents.

 

[Tristesse]

All that I have said is that I am for biological parents raising their children out of love and that I believe that society has an obligation to support that. I have stated that I believe this is what is best for society and children. I have stated that I do not think anything else is as good or is the same. You have assumed everything else and have argued with me for every point that I have made in support of loving biological parents – you have attacked me for this position -- what else am I to think but that you do not support loving biological parents?

Zadok

I'm not aware of anyone who isn't in support of biological parents. But when that isn't an option there isn't much you can do about that. Being gay isn't a decision a person makes, just like being straight isn't a decision people make, it's part of your nature. Loving biological parents are great, but at the same time you could make the argument that we are becoming over populated.

 

[Autodidact]

All that I have said is that I am for biological parents raising their children out of love and that I believe that society has an obligation to support that. I have stated that I believe this is what is best for society and children. I have stated that I do not think anything else is as good or is the same. You have assumed everything else and have argued with me for every point that I have made in support of loving biological parents – you have attacked me for this position -- what else am I to think but that you do not support loving biological parents?

Zadok

No, that is a long way from all that you said. No one objects to biological parents raising their children. That's not the issue. Yes, society should support that. Society should provide schools, maternity leave, and lots of other things that benefit biological parents. Society should also help adoptive parents, gay parents, grandparents, and anyone else willing to be responsible, caring parents. You're the one doing the attacking, Zadok, as well as spewing hateful lies about an entire group of people. Doesn't feel so nice, does it, when the shoe is on the other foot? In fact, your irrational behavior in this thread confirms the obvious fact that Mormons should not be allowed to marry. What, you object to that? Why do you hate rational parents?

 

[Zadok]

.....

I think you're creating a false dichotomy. When a same-sex couple adopts a child, the option of having that child in a home with both biological parents has already disappeared. Same with when a person in a same-sex relationship has children from a previous opposite-sex relationship.

....

I am trying to determine what is best for children - not second best but best. I contend that the best for children is to be in a home with their biological parents that are willing to make sacrifices out of love for their children. If you do not agree with my most basic beginning logic why should I consider discussing anything else? All that I have tried to establish is what is best for society and children and I have been attacked for this opinion. So I am beginning to think most people on this forum hate their parents and hate biological families. If there is something better then let’s discuss it – if not then let’s agree that loving biological parents is what is best.

Zadok

 

[Mr Cheese]

Wow you are very angry - I am sorry I cannot accomodate such anger. Why do you hate biological parents raising children out of love? Please explain - perhaps your own parents did not like you?

Zadok

I dont hate "biological parenting"

I am just aware that it takes far more than a set of genitals to make a parent....
and that throughout all of human history...children have been brought up by people that did not contribute to the 46 chromosomal make up of the child...

:sarcastic

The nuclear family is but one model... arguably one that died...decades ago
I do not hate it, I just dont think it is the ONLY valid expression of a family

 

[Zadok]

No, that is a long way from all that you said. No one objects to biological parents raising their children. That's not the issue. Yes, society should support that. Society should provide schools, maternity leave, and lots of other things that benefit biological parents. Society should also help adoptive parents, gay parents, grandparents, and anyone else willing to be responsible, caring parents. You're the one doing the attacking, Zadok, as well as spewing hateful lies about an entire group of people. Doesn't feel so nice, does it, when the shoe is on the other foot? In fact, your irrational behavior in this thread confirms the obvious fact that Mormons should not be allowed to marry. What, you object to that? Why do you hate rational parents?

What have I said to degrade anyone that objects to what is "best" for children. Please show me where I have been against - I have tried very hard to state clearly what I am for and to ask why anyone thinks something is to be considered "the same". I want to hear why - but all that has come my way is how bad I am for asking.

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

I dont hate "biological parenting"

I am just aware that it takes far more than a set of genitals to make a parent....
and that throughout all of human history...children have been brought up by people that did not contribute to the 46 chromosomal make up of the child...

:sarcastic

The nuclear family is but one model... arguably one that died...decades ago
I do not hate it, I just dont think it is the ONLY valid expression of a family

Why do you argue against me for saying that loving biological parents are what is best for children?

Zadok

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am trying to determine what is best for children - not second best but best. I contend that the best for children is to be in a home with their biological parents that are willing to make sacrifices out of love for their children. If you do not agree with my most basic beginning logic why should I consider discussing anything else? All that I have tried to establish is what is best for society and children and I have been attacked for this opinion.

No, that's not what you're doing. Nobody's disagreeing that loving homes with opposite-sex parents aren't good environments to raise children, but you're twisting this around into some sort of odd position where, apparently, if a child can't be brought up in a home with two opposite-sex biological parents, then it's better for the child not to be born at all.

So I am beginning to think most people on this forum hate their parents and hate biological families. If there is something better then let’s discuss it – if not then let’s agree that loving biological parents is what is best.

In many cases, it isn't. For the most part, children who are up for adoption only when it's clearly established that their biological parents aren't best.

Anyhow, let's see where your argument leads. If we were all to agree that your loving biological parents are what's best, what next? What bearing should this have on society's treatment of children who are brought up in other settings? Please enlighten us.

 

[Zadok]

I dont hate "biological parenting"

.....

The nuclear family is but one model... arguably one that died...decades ago
I do not hate it, I just dont think it is the ONLY valid expression of a family

This is a very interesting comment that the nuclear family has died?...decades ago. What model has replaced it that has proven to be self sustaining and more beneficial over many generations?

I am most interested to learn. A little skeptical adamantly but I am very curious about what you are thinking.

Zadok

 

[MSizer]

...I contend that the best for children is to be in a home with their biological parents that are willing to make sacrifices out of love for their children...Zadok

Yes, but we live in the real world where deadbeat biological parents do in fact exist. Speaking of ideals may make us feel good, but it is not useful when it fails to reflect reality.