Religion and homosexuality

[Mr Cheese]

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

Zadok

because this is the 21st century...

again it takes far more than semen and egg to make a parent!

Have you never known anyone raised by a non biological parent?
:sarcastic I guess that doesnt exist in mormonism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Maybe by "sacrifices", Zadok means that when the biological parents realize that they can't provide a loving home for their children, they should kill those children rather than let them fall into the hands of a same-sex couple.

 

[Autodidact]

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.[/qutoe] You are mistaken.

If you do not agree with my most basic beginning logic why should I consider discussing anything else?

That's not logic, it's a false statement.

All that I have tried to establish is what is best for society and children and I have been attacked for this opinion.

you have tried and failed.

So I am beginning to think most people on this forum hate their parents and hate biological families.

Where on earth are you getting this bizarre idea?

If there is something better then let’s discuss it – if not then let’s agree that loving biological parents is what is best.

Nope. It's not true. Kids do well with biological parents, adoptive parents, and same-sex parents. They don't do as well with divorced parents, single parents, and parents who do not plan for them. Those are the facts.

Hey, me too. It's obvious that kids do better when raised by rational parents. No one who believes there were chariots in the New World is too irrational to be trusted to raise children, so should not be allowed to marry. If you object to this, you must hate all rational parents.

 

[Mr Cheese]

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

Your logic is based on the 19th century victorian dogma of mormonism....
the simple fact that children ahve been raised in other ways...does not compute...
even if it has been occurring, probably, for over 10,000 years....

You really imagine children have never been adopted by people and riased successfully......before 1952 for example?

ANd not one of these children were raised to be healthy productive members of the given soceity they born into?

balderdash...

You are really saying, people as parents cannot be emotionally, financially and otherwise invested in kids.... unless their genitals have interacted to form a zygote...

thats just plain stoooopid

 

[Zadok]

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.


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.

Am I not allowed to state what I am for? Are you the expert in what I believe?

I said I believe that LOVING biological parents are what is best for children. If that is not what I am saying then where is it that I am not saying that????

Everything else is what you are assuming!!! What is wrong with LOVING biological parents. If we all agree on that then at least there is something that we do agree on. The next point is that I do not think that anything else is better or even equal.

Quit worring about what is next -- if something is true that except what is true. If it is not true that state clearl what is not true about it and quit making up arguments that have nothing to do with anything. Try to stay on point with what is being talked about rather than make up something to argue about.

I am honestly trying to determine if there is any common ground in this discussion and I am being hassled greatly for it. What about common ground is so unaccaptable. Is truth and agreeent so hard that it is to be avoided?

For goodness sake - does anyone know what prejudice really is? If we are going to have a meaingful discussion the first thing we should try to do is find common ground - that is unless we are prejudice. Then we argue and accuse no matter what. No wonder there is such bitterness with this subject.

Come now - can we disucss this without demonizing? I am trying....

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

Your logic is based on the 19th century victorian dogma of mormonism....
the simple fact that children ahve been raised in other ways...does not compute...
even if it has been occurring, probably, for over 10,000 years....

You really imagine children have never been adopted by people and riased successfully......before 1952 for example?

ANd not one of these children were raised to be healthy productive members of the given soceity they born into?

balderdash...

You are really saying, people as parents cannot be emotionally, financially and otherwise invested in kids.... unless their genitals have interacted to form a zygote...

thats just plain stoooopid

I am saying loving biological parents are best for children. I assume from your post that you disagree and that you think children are better off if they are adopted? Are you kidding me?

Zadok

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am saying loving biological parents are best for children. I assume from your post that you disagree and that you think children are better off if they are adopted? Are you kidding me?

When we're talking about the children who actually are adopted, then yes: as a rule, they're better off adopted than they are with their biological parents.

This might be because the loving biological parents are dead. It might be because the biological parents were not loving (or were downright abusive). It might be because the biological parents, while loving, were not properly equipped to raise a child.

 

[fantome profane]

I am saying loving biological parents are best for children. I assume from your post that you disagree and that you think children are better off if they are adopted? Are you kidding me?

Zadok

When you say “best” do you mean best of all possible options? Because in reality sometimes being raised by their biological parents is not a possibility for many children. And in those instances where it is not possible to be raised by the biological parents sometimes being raised by a loving same-sex couple is the best option.

 

[Tristesse]

I am saying loving biological parents are best for children. I assume from your post that you disagree and that you think children are better off if they are adopted? Are you kidding me?

Zadok

Well, if the kids are put into an adoption agency than obviously the parent weren't fit to be parents. So, your "loving parents" model fails.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I am saying loving biological parents are best for children. I assume from your post that you disagree and that you think children are better off if they are adopted? Are you kidding me?

Zadok

no...

to repeat...

the nuclear family (one man..one woman....they get nayked...have magic dance....
woman get preggers...have baby) is one valid expression of a capable family. It is far from the only one apt at producing healthily raised kids....

 

[Autodidact]

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

It's not that complicated. You are stating that different sex parents do a better job of parenting than same-sex parents. That is a false statement. If you really cared about what is best for children, then you would be equally supportive of same-sex and different sex parents.

But that's not your concern. Your concern is with biological reproduction, which is something else completely.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Zadok

Because it's false.

 

[Autodidact]

I said I believe that LOVING biological parents are what is best for children. If that is not what I am saying then where is it that I am not saying that????

Do you have any ideas how we can judge who is and is not loving, and how to prevent non-loving parents from having or raising children?

Everything else is what you are assuming!!! What is wrong with LOVING biological parents. If we all agree on that then at least there is something that we do agree on. The next point is that I do not think that anything else is better or even equal.

Hmmm...how should I put this. YOU'RE WRONG.

Quit worring about what is next -- if something is true that except what is true.

Unless it's false.

If it is not true that state clearl what is not true about it and quit making up arguments that have nothing to do with anything.

It's not true. Children do NOT do better with heterosexual parents than with homosexual parents.

Try to stay on point with what is being talked about rather than make up something to argue about.

I am honestly trying to determine if there is any common ground in this discussion and I am being hassled greatly for it. What about common ground is so unaccaptable. Is truth and agreeent so hard that it is to be avoided?

It depends on whether what you're saying is true. It isn't. That's why we disagree.

For goodness sake - does anyone know what prejudice really is? If we are going to have a meaingful discussion the first thing we should try to do is find common ground - that is unless we are prejudice. Then we argue and accuse no matter what. No wonder there is such bitterness with this subject.

yeah, prejudice is when you assume that same-sex parents don't do a good job of raising their children, without knowing any, and without reading any research about them.

Come now - can we disucss this without demonizing? I am trying....

Then stop bad-mouthing same-sex parents.

 

[Autodidact]

I am saying loving biological parents are best for children. I assume from your post that you disagree and that you think children are better off if they are adopted? Are you kidding me?

Zadok

Well, let's take my youngest child. Her biological mother was 15 years old. No one knows who her biological father is. We adopted her into a loving, caring, responsible family that was ready and able to provide her with the stability and parenting she needs. The state agreed, and is thrilled we are willing to do so. It is not easy. In fact, it's incredibly challenging. Now, 7 years later, she's doing pretty well, but it's still hard to make up for the bad parenting she got from her biological parents.

So yes, it was much better for her to be raised by adoptive, non-biological, same-sex parents.

 

[MSizer]

Those who aregue against gay parents here seem to think they know what's best for children, yet they can't explain it in detail. What can a biological parent provide that a non-biological parent can not? What is "good" for a child? Doesn't this have to be established first before we can determine who is a suitable parent? Shelter? Love? Discipline? Why don't the opponents to gay parents lay out their views of what is necessary to raise a child well, and then explain why gay parents are unable to provide such things. It's a ridiculously poor argument that's been presented here against gay parents. It's not even an argument, it's an unsubstantiated assertation.

 

[Smoke]

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.

But you've failed to make the case that it is always best. In fact, everybody knows that it's not always best. Even if it were, it is simply not going to happen for every child, and everybody knows that.

So the question is, knowing as you do that gay couples are raising children whether you like it or not, in what way do you think marginalizing those children benefits children being raised by both biological parents? In what way does it benefit society?

 

[MSizer]

... in what way do you think marginalizing those children benefits children being raised by both biological parents? In what way does it benefit society?

I know I know!!! It will result in fewer children deciding to be gay, because they won't want their kids to be harassed the way they were!

;^)

 

[Witch of Hope]

i was grow up by heterosexual parents, both LDS. Mom didn't love me, and "Dad" was violating us in several ways. My half-sister Gina live in Oklahoma, and is a BA Christian. I live in Germany and I'm a former transsexual, and also a lesbian witch. No love in our home, but al lot of violence. We kids go different ways.
I know a lesbian couple with four adopted children from Asia. They low their children and show them everey day their love. They help them (3 boys and 1 girl) to grow up and teach them to have tolerance to all people. They are Christians.
My sister is also a Christian, but she don't want to have any sort of contact to me. What shall say this to us? That it doesn#t matter if someone is straigt or gay, LOVE is the key to help kids to grow up.

 

[Smoke]

I know I know!!! It will result in fewer children deciding to be gay, because they won't want their kids to be harassed the way they were!

;^)

The sad part is, I think that really is what's behind the anti-gay movement.

They don't have a clue. They can't figure out the most basic facts about human sexuality, but we're expected to believe that they've solved the mystery of the universe and know the mind of God.

 

[dawny0826]

Well, then, tell us about it. I don't deny the possibility. Certainly women, non-white people, non-Christians, and LGBT people still experience discrimination regardless of the laws, and it's possible that you might have been discriminated against for being white or male or Christian or heterosexual. It's just a lot less common.

I don't know if I would agree that it's less common. It's not spotlighted.