2 edits
Originally posted by biffo konkerBiffo? Biffo? what have I ever done to you for you to treat me so disrespectfully? what is more I resent the accusation, I have instructed my children that as Christians we are under duress to demonstrate love to all people regardless of colour or creed, we are however not under duress to love the things they do or practice. If this constitutes bigotry then I hold my hands out and embrace the term! if not, then I feel not a little hurt that you should treat me this way.
And why? Because the parents of the bullies are probably homophobic bigots like you.
Originally posted by stellspalfieI never for a moment confined my view to such a narrow perspective and your free bird seed was as transparent as it gets, meep meep!
ill take this to mean that there is no overriding rule that natural is best. you seems to be making your own system up on scenario by scenario basis.
sometimes you go straight in with 'its wrong because its un-natural'
sometimes you ease off with a 'un-naturals nots wrong, its just that natural is better'
sometimes we get 'un-natural can be bette ...[text shortened]... at anything is wrong purely because its 'un-natural' then all things 'un-natural' must be wrong.
Roadrunner
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfie
you failed to answer my question. if you are not basing your theory on gender stereotypes can you please explain why a child needs a male and female parent. what is specifically a male and specifically a female brings? if you can answer me this ill be happy to tackle the point you have risen above.
you failed to answer my question. if you are not basing your theory on gender stereotypes can you please explain why a child needs a male and female parent. what is specifically a male and specifically a female brings? if you can answer me this ill be happy to tackle the point you have risen above.
I answered you. Obviously you disagree.
The physical arrangement of a man and a woman reproducing a child, I think, carries over in the man and the woman raising that child.
A man and a woman should know the implications of them coming together in sexual union and its outcome. What better arrangement do you propose then the parents of that child taking also the responsibility of nurturing said child ?
What tinkering with this do you assume improves upon that arrangement ?
If you have ever talked to an orphaned person you would know that a big issue with many of them is the desire to KNOW WHO were their parents. Granted, some eventually say they don't care. A whole lot more want to know "Who was my Dad?" or "Who was my Mom?"
So your complaint about "stereotyping " is as strange to me as suggesting it is stereotyping to believe a man and a woman who come together in sexual intercourse will most likely create the offspring of their union.
There is a disconnect in your head between responsible civilized adults producing a child and the shouldering of the responsibility to care for the upbringing of that child they have produced.
I don't trust your experiment to tinker and see if you can invent something just as good. I don't trust your social engineering will improve on several thousand years of human civilization's experience.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat you don't get it is of no surprise. But even if you did, you'd just dodge or deflect or come up with some other nonsense so as to avoid the question. So it's not really worth the time or effort at the moment.
Its a great pity you feel that way, but in the absence of any reason I don't see why I should have to reiterate my thoughts again.
In the meantime, tell me more about how 82,000 deaths is not a crisis?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipagain you are not answering the question (despite your claims to the contrary).you failed to answer my question. if you are not basing your theory on gender stereotypes can you please explain why a child needs a male and female parent. what is specifically a male and specifically a female brings? if you can answer me this ill be happy to tackle the point you have risen above.
I answered you. Obviously you disagree ...[text shortened]... ur social engineering will improve on several thousand years of human civilization's experience.
the physical arrangements of producing a child (sex) have to my mind have little to zero to do with the raising of a child (many people, like my sister had no physical arrangement to produce their kids). so can you please tell me exactly what you think a man specifically brings to the raising of a child that a woman does not and vise-versa.
if it makes it easier for you. lets pretend that you are correct and that a man and woman do make better parents (somehow connected to the fact that they had sex). what is it that they are doing on a daily basis that is better than if it were two male or two female parents. i want the details, the facts, the nitty gritty. not a sweeping statement of it takes and male and female to reproduce so therefore it must mean that it takes a male and female to raise a child. details sonship, if you are right then there most be tangible details that can be measured and observed.
2 edits
the physical arrangements of producing a child (sex) have to my mind have little to zero to do with the raising of a child (many people, like my sister had no physical arrangement to produce their kids).
The argument is not " Are there no exceptions ?" The argument is should society promote the exceptions over the normal situation? Same sex marriages will of necessity deprive the prospective child of one of the other parent who is physiologically representative of the whole unit of humanity - Male and Female.
Two males do not best represent the whole of humanity.
Two females do not best represent the whole of humanity.
A male dad and a female mom best convey to the child vital matters needed to be learned about human society.
Of course exceptions will always happen. Avoiding them is a good idea. Promoting exceptions is not a good idea.
A educated woman may convey important information about being a boy to a boy.
An educated man, in virtue of being a man, has an advantage.
My daughter once told me that I would never understand some things.
Maybe she was right, maybe not. But fortunately she had a mother on the scene who DID understand the things this daughter was so desirous to get assistance in.
You are proposing that the sexes are interchangeable in parenting.
But if procreation requires two sexes why are two sexes suddenly irrelevant in the further nurturing of the growing human being ? We are not insects or so many fish eggs.
so can you please tell me exactly what you think a man specifically brings to the raising of a child that a woman does not and vise-versa.
Just that, being a man as an example and being a woman by example. I don't intend to write a book here where posts are what is happening.
It is curious though. If men and women are completely interchangeable as parents then why doesn't the homosexual simply marry someone of the opposite sex ?
For pleasure to them it makes a big difference. They want someone of their own sex. It is not interchangeable. But when it comes to parenting then they complain that sex is irrelevant. One is as good as the other.
This is selfish. This is the homosexual insisting on his or her preference in sexual pleasure but arguing irrelevance in parenting a child.
This is like a cancer cell which cares nothing for the body in which it lives. It only cares for itself. Such a cancer cell will eventually kill the body.
Again, you reduce human beings to a lower level on the scale of living things. Procreation and parenting should go together in the human race. A snake that leaves its eggs or a roach that breeds its offspring doesn't need to worry about parenting.
Human beings have to be concerned for human families. They are the foundation of our human civilization.
I stop this post here.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExcept Christians who aren't part of your circus sect, of course.
Biffo? Biffo? what have I ever done to you for you to treat me so disrespectfully? what is more I resent the accusation, I have instructed my children that as Christians we are under duress to demonstrate love to all people regardless of colour or creed, we are however not under duress to love the things they do or practice. If this constitutes big ...[text shortened]... t and embrace the term! if not, then I feel not a little hurt that you should treat me this way.
4 edits
lets pretend that you are correct and that a man and woman do make better parents (somehow connected to the fact that they had sex).
what is it that they are doing on a daily basis that is better than if it were two male or two female parents.
They are serving as living examples on a regular basis. Examples of what ? Examples hopefully of love, respect, for the other partner. Self respect and how to deal with a person of the opposite sex. That is unless you are next going to argue that men and women have no significant differences.
Of course you may argue that with many things a dad can teach a mom can teach as well. I could receive piano lessons from either a dad or a mom. But growing up consists of millions of things more than just piano lessons or how to play soccer.
So if you are going to argue that anything a male can teach a child a female can do just as well, I would not argue that has its place. How far are you going to take that ? There are too many very minute aspects to womanhood and manhood which are best taught by living example.
If you have had a daughter, you are in a position to caution her about the dangers of casual relationships with boys in a very effective way. You are one and know what it was to be a young uncommited and lusty boy.
Can a mom do the same thing ? Yes. She can educate from her frame of reference as a female. And the dad can educate from his frame of reference as a male.
I am not saying it is mandatory that such training will fail if it is not carried out in a mom / dad two parent family. I am asking you "Isn't that the normal situation in human history ?"
The loving atmosphere of a committed heterosexual marriage is best suited to attending to the holistic training of the child. The operative word there is "best". A mother may be good at something a dad is not good at, and vica versa. Between the two of them the chance of success is greater at developing the girl into womanhood and the boy into manhood.
Like my daughter as a highschooler exasperatedly blurted out "Dad, you just don't understand and never will understand!"
She had a mom standing by who DID understand.
Face it Stella, a man understands better how a man thinks and acts than a woman understands. And a woman understands how a woman thinks and acts better than a man understands. That's just the way it is.
Are there some really wise women psychologist who can talk about how men think ? Yes, there are some. And there are some sensitive male psychologists who understand women well. But these are professional situations of a far less common nature.
On any given Tuesday in the typical household, the little girl or little boy has to receive training from the parent as a non-professional person. The benefit of life experience are their credentials.
There are things that a dad will COMPLETELY overlook. It is splendid for an available female wife to mention that "You need to do this with that child." I have found that this kind of awareness of the opposite sexed spouse was paramount in raising both boy and girl children.
Yes, a single mom can make it.
Yes, a single dad may make it.
Why not promote the best scenario rather than the exceptions?
Details you ask. Let's just take kids raised in fatherless homes:
i want the details, the facts, the nitty gritty. not a sweeping statement of it takes and male and female to reproduce so therefore it must mean that it takes a male and female to raise a child. details sonship, if you are right then there most be tangible details that can be measured and observed.
Kids without dads:
60 % of America’s rapists
63 % of America’s youth suicides
70 % of America’s long-term prison inmates
70 % of America’s reform school attendees
71 % of America’s teenage pregnancies
71 % of America’s high school dropouts
72 % of America’s adolescent murderers
85 % of America’s youth prisoners
85 % of America’s youth with behavioral disorders
90 % of America’s runaways
Based on the prediction of the result of same-sex marriages resulting in larger numbers of fatherless couples we could well expect increases in these problems.
Most of these stats came from here:
http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm.
Originally posted by Suzianneyes we are encouraged to incite each other to love and fine works, we do this with the Gospel, the Good news of Gods Kingdom, how else?
The only Christians you recognize are other JWs. Why would you have to preach your 'Good News of Gods Kingdom'™ to them?
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob
Answering my question with another question is nothing more than a dodge. It's okay though, I know your answer to this question already, you have answered in a previous thread. You would rather prolong the suffering of children in care than hand them over to a perfectly loving same sex couple. That is nothing short of evil as I've told you before.
I was interested in Jay's answer, which it seems, is not forthcoming. Shame.
When my brother was dying of HIV infection, his homosexual partner took care of him until he died. I am glad he did.
This does not mean I would endorse homosexual sexual activity.
You can always say a particular situation is better than another particular situation. This does not mean the relatively better situation should receive promotion and endorsement.
A child living with two homosexual partners is likely to be better than a child left in the streets and alleys.
A child living with a man and a wild jackal with rabies might be better than a child left in the street.
The real issue is which should we promote -
Committed man and woman marriage or
Committed same sex marriage ?
I think the former is what should be endorsed and the latter not.
I also think that in most states if such were put to a vote - "straight" or heterosexual marriages would be the majority choice. That is why the homosexual activists want to take the matter away from the voting process and use judges to strong arm people to accept them.
The muscle power of judges then is sought to force society to accept homosexuality. If the law says they are just the same as heterosexuals then a legal validation, they hope, will be in place where a human conscience validation usually does not exist.
What is the opposite of "straight" anyway ? Crooked ?
Do you think that homosexual activists will soon turn to rid the lexicons of the dichotomy Straight verses Gay ?
I think that may follow shortly perhaps.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonship"The argument is not " Are there no exceptions ?" The argument is should society promote the exceptions over the normal situation? "the physical arrangements of producing a child (sex) have to my mind have little to zero to do with the raising of a child (many people, like my sister had no physical arrangement to produce their kids).
The argument is not " Are there no exceptions ?" The argument is should society promote the exceptions over the normal situation? Sam ...[text shortened]... r human families. They are the foundation of our human civilization.
I stop this post here.
no body is saying one should be promoted over the other. the argument is for equal rights. until there is solid evidence that children growing up in a same sex house do significantly worse then it is unfair and unequal to deny same sex couples from having children.
"normal situation?"
normality???? how do you define normality??? it was normal to keep slaves at one point. it was normal for woman not to vote. it was normal for people to die before 30. it was normal to put cyanide in make-up. normality is just the zeitgeist. normal does not always equal good or best. normal does not make abnormal wrong........you need to prove abnormal is wrong, which you are still yet to do!!!
Two males do not best represent the whole of humanity.
Two females do not best represent the whole of humanity.
and a man and woman do not represent the whole of humanity either. again i will reiterate normal does not make abnormal wrong. when 99% of marriages were between same race people it didnt make the abnormal black/white couple wrong. you need to prove its wrong before you can say it is wrong.
It is curious though. If men and women are completely interchangeable as parents then why doesn't the homosexual simply marry someone of the opposite sex ? "
i didnt say man and woman are completely interchangeable. my point is that not all men are the same so they cannot all teach children the same things. lets say an extremely effeminate male marries an extremely masculine female. who teaches what? is that child going to be just as well rounded as a kid with very typical male female parents??? what if both male and female parents are extremely masculine??? then what sonship? as you are unable to tell me what it actually is that male and females teach then im guessing you cannot answer this. you seem to be just applying a vague concept of male and female.
everything you have written in your two long posts suggests to me that what you are really getting at is that you think a child needs male and female parents to teach the child to be heterosexual............is this the crux of your argument???