Children's Right to a Mother and Father

[Sirocco]

Yeah I totally agree that the easy divorce system and the over all attitude to it is far more dangerous to the family then gay marriage (I don't think gay marriage is dangerous at all, since gays are such a low percent and marriage amongst anyone is shrinking).
In my family, there's been a lot of divorce, my parents divorced, a lot of kids I knew in school had divorced parents. No gay parents.
I do know several GLBT people and I think only one couple has any intention of marrying, no straight couple I know has ever tossed around the idea.
I wouldn't get married, not walking into that minefield lol
(Personally I should never reproduce, not that I could ever afford something so insanely expensive as a child or children, or wrap my head around taking care of one, balancing that on maintaining a marriage when I have so little experience with the opposite sex and just am a hard to deal with person all together, spells disaster from the start).
I know not to take the plunge because my legs would be shattered, as it were.

[Thinker]

What is Marriage?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nWC22S8FtJs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"As with other public policy issues, religious voices on marriage should be welcomed in the public square. Yet one need not appeal to distinctively religious arguments to understand why marriage—as a natural institution—is the union of man and woman.

Marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs."

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... efining-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"So the same sex marriage issue is really just a thin-entering wedge to deconstruct marriage altogether. How does one do it? By denying that marriage has an essence or nature. Marriage is not essentially between a man and a woman. Rather, on such a postmodernist view, marriage is a social convention akin to driving on the right-hand or left-hand side of the road. There is no objective truth about it. So you can define it any way you want. If we go that route – if we deny that marriage has an essence and is just a social convention – then, of course, it is completely malleable and can be turned into anything. So the drive for same sex marriage is actually an attempt to deconstruct marriage under the mask of obtaining equal rights, marriage equality, and so forth. But that is not the real issue.

I feel free to speak about this issue because I think it is not merely political. It seems to me that this issue is deeply spiritual and moral and, frankly, does represent a kind of watershed moment in American culture. The institution of marriage itself is under assault. So I hope that some of you will join with me in praying for our Supreme Court as we approach this decision."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-supr ... z3bU9Fz2m5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Thinker]

Yeah I totally agree that the easy divorce system and the over all attitude to it is far more dangerous to the family then gay marriage (I don't think gay marriage is dangerous at all, since gays are such a low percent and marriage amongst anyone is shrinking).

Obviously the family is the basic unit of society and divorce hurts a lot of people - especially children.
Yet, the OP/Topic in this thread is about whether government has the right to legally deny children a mother or father in favor of "rights" of couples with homosexual preferences.
To try to ignore that, and bring up heterosexual divorce doesn't help the discussion and is a logical fallacy (straw man).
To discuss a problem - you discuss the problem - not other problems.

As those who have suffered in being denied a mother or father and raised by homosexual parents testify, it is not fair or just for government to legally support and encourage behavior known to be harmful.
What is loving is striving for what is healthy for society - including future society - children.
According to the US CDC, national health reports reflect that those who engage in homosexual practices have high statistics of STDs, AIDS/HIV (because they sleep around a lot) and mental illness (which drug abuse is also listed as some resort to homosexuality prostitution to support drug habits).

And children need a mother and father - not only to be conceived, but also to thrive. Mothers love in unique ways and Fathers love in unique ways - both are needed for a well-balanced child.

[Sirocco]

Yeah I totally agree that the easy divorce system and the over all attitude to it is far more dangerous to the family then gay marriage (I don't think gay marriage is dangerous at all, since gays are such a low percent and marriage amongst anyone is shrinking).

Obviously the family is the basic unit of society and divorce hurts a lot of people - especially children.
Yet, the OP/Topic in this thread is about whether government has the right to legally deny children a mother or father in favor of "rights" of couples with homosexual preferences.
To try to ignore that, and bring up heterosexual divorce doesn't help the discussion and is a logical fallacy (straw man).
To discuss a problem - you discuss the problem - not other problems.

As those who have suffered in being denied a mother or father and raised by homosexual parents testify, it is not fair or just for government to legally support and encourage behavior known to be harmful.
What is loving is striving for what is healthy for society - including future society - children.
According to the US CDC, national health reports reflect that those who engage in homosexual practices have high statistics of STDs, AIDS/HIV (because they sleep around a lot) and mental illness (which drug abuse is also listed as some resort to homosexuality prostitution to support drug habits).

And children need a mother and father - not only to be conceived, but also to thrive. Mothers love in unique ways and Fathers love in unique ways - both are needed for a well-balanced child.

Why did you necro this thread to say the same thing you always say to me.
Clearly I disagree and this is going nowhere.

[Thinker]

Sirocco,
Nothing better to contribute?
I don't blame you - if I had to argue for legally denying children a mother or father in favor of harmful sexual substitutes, I'd be at a loss too.

Btw - I haven't seen you question bringing back threads you agree with. ;)

[Sirocco]

Sirocco,
Nothing better to contribute?
I don't blame you - if I had to argue for legally denying children a mother or father in favor of harmful sexual substitutes, I'd be at a loss too.

Btw - I haven't seen you question bringing back threads you agree with. ;)

When have I done that?
Necroing is almost as bad as stale memes.

I've said my piece several times, that's what I believe, I'm not just going to repeat myself over and over.
That's it.

[Ezra]

Yeah I totally agree that the easy divorce system and the over all attitude to it is far more dangerous to the family then gay marriage (I don't think gay marriage is dangerous at all, since gays are such a low percent and marriage amongst anyone is shrinking).

Obviously the family is the basic unit of society and divorce hurts a lot of people - especially children.
Yet, the OP/Topic in this thread is about whether government has the right to legally deny children a mother or father in favor of "rights" of couples with homosexual preferences.
To try to ignore that, and bring up heterosexual divorce doesn't help the discussion and is a logical fallacy (straw man).
To discuss a problem - you discuss the problem - not other problems.

As those who have suffered in being denied a mother or father and raised by homosexual parents testify, it is not fair or just for government to legally support and encourage behavior known to be harmful.
What is loving is striving for what is healthy for society - including future society - children.
According to the US CDC, national health reports reflect that those who engage in homosexual practices have high statistics of STDs, AIDS/HIV (because they sleep around a lot) and mental illness (which drug abuse is also listed as some resort to homosexuality prostitution to support drug habits).

And children need a mother and father - not only to be conceived, but also to thrive. Mothers love in unique ways and Fathers love in unique ways - both are needed for a well-balanced child.

Why did you necro this thread to say the same thing you always say to me.
Clearly I disagree and this is going nowhere.

Do you disagree because you were raised by homosexual parents and are proof that it's good? Or that you wish you were?

[Sirocco]

Neither.
I don't believe homosexuality is wrong or bad or anything of that sort, I've posted my views on this forum a dozen or more times on the subject, as much detail and angles as I can think.

If you wish to read it I can gather it up, maybe put it into a thread or just post it as a reply.

[David13]

I'm certainly grateful to Heavenly Father that I had a mother and a father, a woman and a man, who were good role models to me that I might grow and develop into an adult as Heavenly Father intended.
dc

[Ezra]

Neither.
I don't believe homosexuality is wrong or bad or anything of that sort, I've posted my views on this forum a dozen or more times on the subject, as much detail and angles as I can think.

If you wish to read it I can gather it up, maybe put it into a thread or just post it as a reply.

How can you say it's ok when you don't have first hand experience?

In no way can one person no matter how well educated ,can in one life time come to such a depths of knowledge and understanding to safely judge and dispel the wisdom of the generations.

Queers fight against nature. It's not natural. By Choosing that life style it is filled with depression and disease.
The generations have passed down the knowledge of how bad it is.

[Sirocco]

Neither.
I don't believe homosexuality is wrong or bad or anything of that sort, I've posted my views on this forum a dozen or more times on the subject, as much detail and angles as I can think.

If you wish to read it I can gather it up, maybe put it into a thread or just post it as a reply.

How can you say it's ok when you don't have first hand experience?

In no way can one person no matter how well educated ,can in one life time come to such a depths of knowledge and understanding to safely judge and dispel the wisdom of the generations.

Queers fight against nature. It's not natural. By Choosing that life style it is filled with depression and disease.
The generations have passed down the knowledge of how bad it is.

How ironic you would say that because that's exactly what you're doing.
You ask me how can I say it's okay if I don't have a first hand experience but you're perfectly willing to say it's not okay despite not having a first hand experience. You put up all sorts of barriers and hoops for me to jump into during all these discussions, but feel perfectly justified in ignoring them yourself.

[Ezra]

Neither.
I don't believe homosexuality is wrong or bad or anything of that sort, I've posted my views on this forum a dozen or more times on the subject, as much detail and angles as I can think.

If you wish to read it I can gather it up, maybe put it into a thread or just post it as a reply.

How can you say it's ok when you don't have first hand experience?

In no way can one person no matter how well educated ,can in one life time come to such a depths of knowledge and understanding to safely judge and dispel the wisdom of the generations.

Queers fight against nature. It's not natural. By Choosing that life style it is filled with depression and disease.
The generations have passed down the knowledge of how bad it is.

How ironic you would say that because that's exactly what you're doing.
You ask me how can I say it's okay if I don't have a first hand experience but you're perfectly willing to say it's not okay despite not having a first hand experience. You put up all sorts of barriers and hoops for me to jump into during all these discussions, but feel perfectly justified in ignoring them yourself.

I do have first hand experience of having a mother and father. And first hand experience of working with troubled teens who have gay parents and all their problems.
Plus the generations of info saying it sin and why it's wrong other then my first hand experience.

Nice try though.

[Thinker]

Ezra,
You make a good point about axiomatic (undeniably obvious) truth based on experience.
Each of us - billions of us - are proof that heterosexuality is what works - what is natural and orderly.
Homosexuality - with all of the disease and anal sex risks - is what shows that it is disorderly.
Even if a person has never had homosexual experiences - it is not very difficult to see that a man's part does not fit into another man's part - and when using another's anus as sexual substitute, there are problems like anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.

So incredibly obvious - is human anatomy and reproduction in explaining that homosexuality is not only illogical, but it is also harmful!

Then, WHY on earth would otherwise intelligent people fall for the lies pretending homosexuality is "gay happy rainbows"?
It is either they are clinging to their false gods (sexual substitutes/homosexuality) over truth, or because of systematic mind-control that has been pervading politics and media for decades, if not longer...

I wrote this in the other thread...

You mentioned the homosexual agenda. It has been a strategic plan to sway public opinion by force - by bullying, by calling names, lying - anything that is required to psychologically undermine anyone who disagrees, so that those mentally weak will submit and go along. It explains why otherwise intelligent people are falling for ridiculous nonsense, that even defies their own undeniably true means of existence and reproduction.

"The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media
The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media.

From the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books) which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.

Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening....

A founding work of the modern homosexual movement, this book covers a wide discussion of tactics and observations relating to the homosexual movement. But the overall main psychological strategies are well summarized in a ten-page section (pp. 147-157) titled "Pushing the right buttons: halting, derailing, or reversing the 'engine of prejudice'". Reprinted below, this is the meat of the book which has been re-used and referred to by the homosexual movement countless times.

It discusses (1) Desensitization, (2) Jamming, and (3) Conversion."

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The people who push homosexual "rights" seem to be blind to what is right - and where rights come from - "endowed by their Creator with rights." They also seem to want justice that favors them, rather than what is best for society - particularly future society - children.

[Ezra]

In the wilderness youth program that I work at. There have been numerous kids there who have 2 gay parents. The problems that these kids face are very sad. Most have depression and turn to drugs to cope. Most have body image issue and other mental illness or distorted views of themselfs.
Its hard on people to be able to see what's right and good and live in a situation that's wrong.

[skmo]

...Listen Thinker. You seem most sincere. Here's what I suggest...You need to try to accept the fact that we are going to have to learn how to accept, and tolerate, same sex marriage. You will not change the mind of any homosexual by demanding that they change their mind, and you will not be able to drag along, no matter how eloquent your argument, any heterosexuals who have decided it's not their right to demand conformity either...Your argument rests on your insistence that homosexuality is "based on fetishes," (a particularly bad argument)...

After having tilted at that particular windmill, I have come to the conclusion that some illusions will have to remain illusions. Rational discussions have no effect on irrational fears. As Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings, “The burned hand teaches best. After that, advice about fire goes to the heart.” Some people, and I have certainly been one, need a burned hand.

[skmo]

The US Declaration of Independence used to be honored and it reads,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Seems pretty obvious that we all have such rights from CREATION/conception.

Keep in mind, however, these words were written by a man who decided that his 14-16 year old slave girl didn't have the right to refuse sex with him, seeing as how she was his property.

[skmo]

Yet, the OP/Topic in this thread is about whether government has the right to legally deny children a mother or father in favor of "rights" of couples with homosexual preferences.

Well, that's an easy one to answer: Yes, they do.

Is it right? No. Is it proper? No. Is it in the best interest of society? No. Is it moral? No.

However, legal rights and moral rights are two different things. We have laws to allow society to function smoothly because we can't always agree on what is and isn't moral. Because of this, we have laws that make compromises and if we're lucky, do a decent job of providing an optimum situation to bring happiness and success. Our legal structure and our moral/ethical/religious/spiritual structure are separate, and that's good, overall. The price of freedom is the willingness to accept wrong choices, from ourselves and from others. Until we have actual divine leadership, we have to do the best we can with what we have.

[Thinker]

The problem is the way marriage was legally changed to include certain sexual distortion. It was not legally sound. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make law - especially when the people voted against it but some wanted it anyway and forced it. Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained this before he was found dead in his hotel room,

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

I was inspired by these kids’ simple but brave way of defending true marriage...

[Fiannan]

[Thinker]

Lately I’ve been thinking about children and divorce. I would hate to not have a full home but have to be shuffled back and forth to two 1/2 homes. I believe unless in cases of abuse, affair or addiction that disrupts family life - couples should make something work for their kids - to keep the family intact.

On Sean-Hannady talk radio today, this guy was saying how a survey found that of all people in that prison, not one of them grew up with both parents married/together!! He also explained how he believed his 20-year drug addiction stemmed from the trauma of his parents divorcing when he was 7.

Believe me, I know marriage isn’t easy. But I know more people could eat humble pie and make it work and thereby not hurt their kids and each other so much.

[Thinker]

Homosexual activists show more concern for adults’ sexual deviations than the well-being of children. A woman’s raised by homosexual parents speaks out against homosexual “marriage” and supports traditional marriage between a Mann and a woman.

[Juliet]

I think every marriage is under attack and if you can't learn to cry out Jesus then you won't make it. Satan can and will defeat your marriage unless you call him on his game.

We are not supposed to have any gods before God and God brings a family together and seals it. That means happiness comes from righteous behavior not your spouse's behavior.

[Pseudonym]

It is not that I disagree - but I think (maybe) I have a different point of view. It is my point of view that the cognitive responsibility lies with adults. As much as children's right sound exciting to talk about - Children are dependent on adults. I used the phrase "cognitive responsibility" because if there is no one willing to be cognitively responsible - the only possible outcome is unjust.

I believe that we can all agree that the best possible outcome for children is that they are born to biological parents (obviously an adult man and an adult woman) that are both cognitively responsible. This means that the parents are well aware of what they are doing and are willing and able to be responsible for their actions and the outcome of their actions. Again I have a little phrase "willing and able". Obviously if one of the biological parents dies (especially a unplanned death) then the reality is that they were not able to be responsible for their creation of a child regardless of how willing they were. Generally in our society children are not legally emancipated until they are 18. That is a long time.

And so we have permutations of possibilities even with the most noble of intentions. I think I can understand a breakdown of two parent families. As a retired physicists I also have a good handle on methods of defining variations in complex systems (Chaos Theory). Given these parameters - I am confused by what has become the social-political view of what is termed "Liberalism" - that is sure the development of natural resources by the human species is - on one hand considered criminal but the changing of biological parents as a cognitive responsibility is not problem at all - not just for biological parents but for the entire society????

I think our liberal friends and some logical wires crossed backwards in their brains.

[Thinker]

...And so we have permutations of possibilities even with the most noble of intentions. I think I can understand a breakdown of two parent families. As a retired physicists I also have a good handle on methods of defining variations in complex systems (Chaos Theory). Given these parameters - I am confused by what has become the social-political view of what is termed "Liberalism" - that is sure the development of natural resources by the human species is - on one hand considered criminal but the changing of biological parents as a cognitive responsibility is not problem at all - not just for biological parents but for the entire society????

I think our liberal friends and some logical wires crossed backwards in their brains.

I'm not sure I understand your perspective. So please correct me if I'm mistaken.

What do you mean by "development of natural resources"? Solar power etc? Or as one of the founding fathers said our richest resource is our workforce - people - and in this case children. So were you suggesting people (who?) who termed Liberalism, see it criminal to kill children in abortion, but see no problem with the cognitive sickness of parents, who are responsible for children?

[Pseudonym]

...And so we have permutations of possibilities even with the most noble of intentions. I think I can understand a breakdown of two parent families. As a retired physicists I also have a good handle on methods of defining variations in complex systems (Chaos Theory). Given these parameters - I am confused by what has become the social-political view of what is termed "Liberalism" - that is sure the development of natural resources by the human species is - on one hand considered criminal but the changing of biological parents as a cognitive responsibility is not problem at all - not just for biological parents but for the entire society????

I think our liberal friends and some logical wires crossed backwards in their brains.

I'm not sure I understand your perspective. So please correct me if I'm mistaken.

What do you mean by "development of natural resources"? Solar power etc? Or as one of the founding fathers said our richest resource is our workforce - people - and in this case children. So were you suggesting people (who?) who termed Liberalism, see it criminal to kill children in abortion, but see no problem with the cognitive sickness of parents, who are responsible for children?

Thank you for your question. I will try to explain with a little more detail. All things that we observe and understand in our physical universe exist in what is called a state of equilibrium or balance. This defines partial physics, solar systems and super clusters. If the parameters of a complex system (or any system) is altered beyond the threshold of equilibrium then the entire system will achieve a new state of equilibrium. This is the essence of Chaos Theory. This theory is at the bases of all environmental arguments against human development. That we will change the balance of things and create a new state of balance that will no longer support life as we know it. This is the argument for preserving endangered species as well as the argument for human caused atmospheric carbon. The bases of the argument is that we should not "test" the thresholds of balance of nature for fear of catastrophic changes.

But society is having no difficulty or reservation in changing the parameters that define the human nuclear family. Biologically all human families and the preservation of the species is completely dependent on the preservation of the male and female sexual relationship from which the species is propagated. It is scientifically known and demonstrated that many species have become extinct because of changes within the mating environment. For example it is believe that the Neanderthal species possibly became extinct with less than a 2% change in the repudiation rate of females during their reproductive prime age. Keep in mind that it is believed that the Neanderthal species existed for almost 100,000 years before becoming extinct.

In short there is great fear in very minor environmental changes but none what-so-ever that any change in the human species reproduction behavior to be of any consequence at all.