Originally posted by slimjimJesus says family are the ones who do the will of the Father. So my interpretation of this is that people who care and love one another are family.
I believe the good book says its a sin to be a homosexual. I don't subscribe to that. I'm just against same sex parents who adopt.
Let's look at some of the problems here:
1. Those (such as Slim) opposed to same sex parents possibly base this on a concern that same sex parents raising their kids are more likely to raise them to become homosexual themselves. Firstly, there is no clear evidence that this is the case. Secondly, unless you see homosexuality as some sort of biblical sin (in which case pretty much everything else in the modern world is also sinful), so what if you raise homosexual kids?
2. Taking Trevor's point about loving same sex parents: there are a pretty large group of parents out there - male/female parents who do a pretty terrible job at raising their kids. As a teacher I come across a significant number of these, and the basket case kids that result. The point? Opposite sex parents don't have a monopoly on doing particularly well at raising kids.
Originally posted by Ice ColdWhen you go to the intellectual property registration office
What are same sex patents?
and ask for the registration of inventions of the same sex.
it works better in countries which language (i.e. Spanish) has
a gender for things (el & la), so your invention can be male
or female.
😉
Now seriously, here is my opinion...
It is a heated one in which I haven't
concluded to figure out a position yet. I think it is arrogant when
the progressists spout their cosmopolitanism as if it was a
matter of fact and everybody else is wrong. Sick of that. I live in
Scandinavia, so I see that everyday, and people like me, undecided
about a definitive, terminant position, are not well seen. Now imagine
how Christians are seen here 😕
Anyway, that's a personal position in life: Do not trust those arseholes
who speak as if they are owners of the whole truth.
Now, for me currently it boils down to two extremes: I was raised as
Christian and I consider myself one (protestant and proud of it), yet
my parents were very liberal, specially raising me as respectful of
minorities (since we were a minority in my country of origin,
a 95% Catholic one).
So I have mixed feelings about the same sex parenting. On
one hand, it holds strong the aristotelic position to distinguish what
is intrinsecally good or bad: Apply it to all
humankind and if it extinguishes the specie, then it is bad. That
doesn't mean it should be eliminated nor it is a right to be whatever
you want. It means that it cannot be held as good for humankind.
Thus, if everybody were homosexual, the human race would naturally
disappear from the face of earth. Uncontestable (including those who
would spout about fertilization and blah blah, because in a pure state
people not having heterosexual intercourse would result in no kids).
That doesn't mean being homosexuals shouldn't be respected
and protected the same as krishnas, handicapped, republicans,
atheists, golfers, lol... you name it. But holding back same sex
parenting still has not strong, scientific data as to whether it defines
the sexual orientation of the raised children or not.
Plus, the position of those of us who wish same sex parenting is
not allowed because of our beliefs and because our liberalism is
not yet supported by strong data that confirms there is no risk
for the new generations, may be supported by the way we were
raised. Kant said it good: Act in such a way that the principle
of your action can be converted into universal law. We are
here, happy and normal, therefore we were raised good. Why
change the formula that has proven effective so far? 😉
Conclusion: I believe in the traditional family. I respect homosexuals,
though. I don't believe in imposing my beliefs on others. Yet, I am
happy that same sex parenting is not allowed.
Originally posted by trevor33In Norway we have the absurd situation that homosexual couples are not allowed to adopt children, with the main argument that children should have a mother and a father, but singles are allowed to adopt (this is a quite recent development, though). It doesn't make any sense.
surly two parents whatever sex they are, is better than one?
I agree with some other posters that it's not as easy as "two parents are better than one". It depends on the parents, their parenting abilities and their relationship (I don't think it's good for children to grow up with parents who fight all the time, for example), but also on the network around the family. If a single parent has grandparents who live in the same house, or several families live closely together, it might be better than two parents who are quite isolated. In short, I think if someone wants to adopt a child, you need to look closely at the person and circumstances. But I don't think sexual orientation should be an issue.
In this country, the law has just been changed (or is just about to be - not sure of the timescale) to formally allow lesbian and gay couples to adopt as a couple.
Previously, we had the ridiculous situation were a person in a gay or lesbian relationship could adopt as an individual, and have a child living in their household with their partner, but that partner wasn't recognised as a parent.
I really don't understand the arguments against this. There is no evidence that the children are in any way harmed by having two parents of the same gender.
I think those who want to change the status quo are the ones
with the burden of demonstrating it does not negatively affect*
the children to have same sex parents, Red.
* Notice I used the term instead of harm, which is too extreme,
both for supporters and deniers of same sex parenting...
don't you think?