R. C. bishops: We'd rather see children suffer than acknowledge same-sex couples

[-Peacemaker-]

. However, what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't procreate. Should we allow them to adopt chirldren even though nature had a different plan for them?

I think nature show that it at least doesn't have a problem with them procreating in theory.

 

[Tristesse]

I think nature show that it at least doesn't have a problem with them procreating in theory.

THEY CAN'T PROCREATE. So, obviously "nature"(as you call it) had a different plan for them. What you can't do, is say, "homosexual couples can't procreate, therefor they should adopt children." And then when confronted with an issue like infertile couples, make a special exemption for them.

 

[Drolefille]

Cheers for the info.

I can't comment on the US method of providing adoption services, but I can say that it would not be appreciated in the UK. It would be seen as the State avoiding it's responsibility.

We have a love/hate relationship with government services here. In theory contracting services keeps government small and provides jobs to private businesses, etc while also saving money. In practice sometimes it's more effective than others. *shrugs* it's way too complicated for me to pretend that I fully understand it. I worked for our state government for two years in grad school, but it's not my field.

Suffice to say that the contracts make requirements and hold the agencies to standards so that the job is getting done and (again in theory) being done right.

I think nature show that it at least doesn't have a problem with them procreating in theory.

So if I have to give my hypothetical child up for adoption I should do a fertility test on the couple first to be sure nature's ok with them having kids, right?

This line of argument doesn't get you anywhere when it comes to adoption by same-sex parents. There's no evidence they're worse parents than opposite sex parents, so why prevent them from adoption children?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll phrase it another way. Your assertion that right and wrong is subjective is ************. If you can't even acknowledge that the "golden rule", which is based on treating others as yourself, has value and should be adhered to, then I'm at a loss for words.

Since you've rejected the Golden Rule with your position, who are you to demand that other people acknowledge it? It seems rather hypocritical, frankly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Enlighten me

How would you feel if someone prohibited you from adopting for some reason that had nothing to do with your fitness as a parent?

Your religion, for instance. What if this Catholic adoption agency decided that it wouldn't place children with Protestants? If you applied to adopt a child and were rejected because of this, how would you react? Would you consider yourself unfairly treated?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Since you've rejected the Golden Rule with your position, who are you to demand that other people acknowledge it? It seems rather hypocritical, frankly.

I assume you're saying that my rejection of homosexual adoption is a rejection of the Golden Rule because if I was in a gay relationship and wanted to adopt with my partner I'm saying that it would be improper. That's not a fair comparison. If I'm a criminal and I want to hurt somebody unjustly, and someone stops me from doing so, have they broken the Golden Rule because they didn't allow me to do what I wanted? Of course not. My position is very consistent with the Golden Rule because if I was a child I would not want to be adopted by a gay couple. If I had a child I was putting up for adoption, I would not want them adopted by a gay couple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think nature show that it at least doesn't have a problem with them procreating in theory.

"In theory"? :sarcastic

If we're going to infer God's intent from state of the natural world, then I think we should be even more against infertile heterosexual couples adopting. I mean, even though they have all the right gametes, God has singled them out for childlessness. How much clearer can God get? Who are you to second-guess the specific decision of God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I assume you're saying that my rejection of homosexual adoption is a rejection of the Golden Rule because if I was in a gay relationship and wanted to adopt with my partner I'm saying that it would be improper. That's not a fair comparison.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

You may have missed my reply to your post that you deleted; hopefully it will help you understand my position better.

If I'm a criminal and I want to hurt somebody unjustly, and someone stops me from doing so, have they broken the Golden Rule because they didn't allow me to do what I wanted? Of course not. My position is very consistent with the Golden Rule because if I was a child I would not want to be adopted by a gay couple. If I had a child I was putting up for adoption, I would not want them adopted by a gay couple.

If I was a child, I wouldn't want to be adopted by a Christian couple, all else being equal. What discrimination does this justify?

 

[Me Myself]

What's right and wrong become a little clearer when you ask yourselves how you'd want to be treated if it were your own children that needed to be rasied by another couple due to some unforseen circumstance arising that made raising them yourself impossible. I gaurantee that the heterosexual people here would choose heterosexual parents for their children if given a choice between them and gays.

So what? Make a chld choose between parents of different race and same race, they probably will choose same race. Wealthy parents than parents with avarage money. Drats, pretty parents to ugly ones. It could even come down to who has a playstation the room awaiting for the child!

A parent that likes his favorite superheroe best. A parent with similar likes.

Ultimately, they will prefer to have two daddies than no daddies, two mommies than no mommies. I can garantee you that for at least the wide majority.

Also:

[youtube]1VnEexIhBTU[/youtube]
Gay parents - YouTube

The child is already born, it doesn´t matter if the parents can o would like to procreate, what matters is that they have the will and the love to raise the childs. That´s all.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The data already exists and despite being informed about it, you've decided to ignore it. The proponents of Proposition 8 tried to make this same argument in court and for those of us who followed the trial it was hilarious to watch. Why? Because their only witness on the topic had to admit there was no harm caused to children by having them raised by same sex couples.

Medscape: Medscape Access
Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com


Here's one where it says kids are at risk- because of the laws that are anti LGBT.
Children of Same-Sex Parents Harmed By Anti-gay Laws, Says Study - ABC News

Check out prop8trialtracker.com and go back through the liveblogs of the testimony on same-sex parenting if you're really interested in reading evidence as admitted and argued in court on the matter. The site is biased, but since the defense is arguing that the video shouldn't be released, transcripts are the best we can do.

That's a fascinating study composing all 81 cases over 5 years. How about the MILLIONS that have been studied who were from single parent homes, studies conducted over a LIFETIME. Where only ONE of TWO genders that helped create them were represented. The studies are conclusive that these kids are much more likely to be criminals and/or addicts as well as suffer from emotional problems like depression. I assume you believe these studies of MILLIONS of children says nothing about the fact that perhaps men and women each bring something unique and NECESSARY for healthy childhood devlopment. That's unimaginable considering that it took male and female to create them, right? I assume you believe the conclusions of studies conducted about single parent children simply point to the number "2" being the magic number when it comes to raising a child. You need two parents, doesn't matter if there, gay, straight, trans-something, or whatever other fetish strikes their fancy. Any less than "2" and look out, right?

 

[Drolefille]

That's a fascinating study composing all 81 cases.

Over 500 cases were studied in just one of those links, you neither read both links nor fully researched your position.

How about the MILLIONS that have been studied who were from single parent homes.

Where only ONE of TWO genders that helped create them were represented.

Right it's totally that there's one gender represented and not one income, one person to take care of the kids. It has nothing to do with class and socioeconomic status and the prevalence of poverty and single parent households. It has everything to do with the fact that there's just a mom at home, right?

Ooh I bet that after making this assumption you're going to accuse me of making an assumption. Lets find out.

The studies are conclusive that these kids are much more likely to be criminals and/or addicts as well as emitional problems like depression. I assume you believe these studies of MILLIONS of children says nothing about the fact that perhaps men and women each bring something unique and NECESSARY for healthy childhood devlopment.

No, you are assuming that men and women bring something unique and capslock necessary for "devlopment".

That's unimaginable considering that it took male and female to create them, right?

You're claiming that a biological phenomenon requires a specific social phenomenon and that marriage between a man and a woman is the only functional way? That's such a narrow view of the world and one not supported by evidence other than your belief.

I assume you believe the conclusions of studies conducted about single parent children simply point to the number "2" being the magic number when it comes to raising a child.

I don't believe anything. The studies indicate that two parents are inherently more capable of taking care of children than one, and that in fact lesbian adoptive parents would be better at taking care of your kids, statistically, than you would be. But keep on :ignore: and maybe the truth will change its bias against your beliefs.

And you know, it's all those opposite sex couples who raised the gay kids in the first place. Maybe they're just doing something wrong, right?

You need two parents, doesn't matter if there, gay, straight, trans-something, or whatever other fetish strikes their fancy. Any less than that and look out, right?

trans-something? Try to be less offensive. One's sexual orientation, gender identity nor sexual preferences don't affect one's parenting skills.

You ignored the fact that the only study that shows harm involves children being harmed by anti-gay laws not by the parents.

 

[Skwim]

.......

 

[Drolefille]

.......

Was that'n for me?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As far as citations go, just do a quick internet search with words such as: single, parent, children, criminal, addict, stats. You'll find more stats than you'll have time to read which support the assetion that children that don't grow up with a mom and dad are far more likely to end up poorly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as citations go, just do a quick internet search with words such as: single, parent, children, criminal, addict, stats. You'll find more stats than you'll have time to read which support the assetion that children that don't grow up with a mom and dad are far more likely to end up poorly.

Even if your phantom stats actually did exist, do you really not understand how dishonest it is to claim that statistics about single parents are relevant to same-sex couples?

Apparently, you've not only given up on the Golden Rule, but you have no problem bearing false witness (edit: to say nothing of how uncharitable you've shown yourself toward LGBT people with your arguments). I know you list your religion as "Christian", but are you actually one?

 

[Me Myself]

As far as citations go, just do a quick internet search with words such as: single, parent, children, criminal, addict, stats. You'll find more stats than you'll have time to read which support the assetion that children that don't grow up with a mom and dad are far more likely to end up poorly.

But the main factors that probably were to be taken in consideration are probably out:

Right it's totally that there's one gender represented and not one income, one person to take care of the kids. It has nothing to do with class and socioeconomic status and the prevalence of poverty and single parent households. It has everything to do with the fact that there's just a mom at home, right?

Most single parent rasigin childs may very well me of lower socioeconomic class and this lower class would be the main factor that would make the criminality chart go up.

 

[Tristesse]

As far as citations go, just do a quick internet search with words such as: single, parent, children, criminal, addict, stats. You'll find more stats than you'll have time to read which support the assetion that children that don't grow up with a mom and dad are far more likely to end up poorly.

Actaully, there are many studies that show gay couples raising children are even better off or the same as straight parents. Please show me a study that counters this, and isn't a christian propaganda study, then you might have a case.

 

[McBell]

I'll phrase it another way. Your assertion that right and wrong is subjective is ************. If you can't even acknowledge that the "golden rule", which is based on treating others as yourself, has value and should be adhered to, then I'm at a loss for words.

Even the "Golden Rule" is not a universal good.
Which further demonstrates the point you avoid.

 

[Draka]

If I was a child, I wouldn't want to be adopted by a Christian couple, all else being equal. What discrimination does this justify?

Personally, I'd rather have my kids raised by a Pagan/Buddhist/Hindu/agnostic/atheist same sex couple than a Christian hetero couple...all else being equal. To me, ideals and foundations concerning how to treat others and education are far more important than the plumbing of the individuals.

 

[Skwim]

Was that'n for me?

Only in the sense that' you'll never get what you're looking for here. Seems that of late unsupported claims have been all the fad around RF.