100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Non-profit religious charities - ulterior motive? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You can have your opinion. Why can't I have mine? I don't agree with yours. So what? Why does that bother you so much? They already are going with your opinion. I disagree with what is already happening. Why do you feel you need to defend this so strongly? I never said a homosexual couple was incapable of raising a child. Oh NOWWWWW you're gonna backpedal. If you don't think they are incapable, than give them a damn chance! I don't care if you agree with me or not, you can have your view, but when your view is directly or indirectly effecting others lives as would be in a case like this, that's where I have a problem. And that's where I feel a need to defend this, because this is bad for the kids as it means less chances to find a home for them, and discriminates against loving couples who would love to give them that home. I'm not backpedaling. If you care to look, I always said kids are better off in a heterosexual home. I never said that a homosexual home is bad. This whole debate stared because the Catholic church was forced to decide if allowing a homosexual couple adopt was better than closing their doors. Each was an equally abhorrent choice they had to make. They had to choose the lessor of two evils. Renounce one of their tenants as being false. That is a church body standing up and saying, "We are wrong on what sin is." Or, abandon their cause to help children. Now you're just twisting words, cause you infer that the homosexual home is bad, when you suggest a heterosexual home is better. You can't get around that. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me. I dont get that inferrence at all, IF I say that having a two parent home is better (statistically gives better results) than a one parent home,, does that mean a one parent home is BAD bad and good are extremes with a grey area between them, that is how we can have GOOD , BETTER, and BEST something being better doesnt mean the other thing(s) are bad I think what's best for the kid, should depend on what the individual couple or single parent even can offer it, and that'd be different depending on the kid. None is really better than another, it just depends on the child's individual need and who can meet it best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why? when GENDER is a SIGNIFICANT factor in creating a child should it suddenly have no MERIT or SIGNIFICANCE In raising one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can have your opinion. Why can't I have mine? I don't agree with yours. So what? Why does that bother you so much? They already are going with your opinion. I disagree with what is already happening. Why do you feel you need to defend this so strongly? I never said a homosexual couple was incapable of raising a child. Oh NOWWWWW you're gonna backpedal. If you don't think they are incapable, than give them a damn chance! I don't care if you agree with me or not, you can have your view, but when your view is directly or indirectly effecting others lives as would be in a case like this, that's where I have a problem. And that's where I feel a need to defend this, because this is bad for the kids as it means less chances to find a home for them, and discriminates against loving couples who would love to give them that home. I'm not backpedaling. If you care to look, I always said kids are better off in a heterosexual home. I never said that a homosexual home is bad. This whole debate stared because the Catholic church was forced to decide if allowing a homosexual couple adopt was better than closing their doors. Each was an equally abhorrent choice they had to make. They had to choose the lessor of two evils. Renounce one of their tenants as being false. That is a church body standing up and saying, "We are wrong on what sin is." Or, abandon their cause to help children. Now you're just twisting words, cause you infer that the homosexual home is bad, when you suggest a heterosexual home is better. You can't get around that. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me. No, that is your interpretation of what I mean by better. Levels are good - better - best. I have been thinking all along that a homosexual family can be good. You did not know what was in my head. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me.
Are you now the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Why didn't you say it then to start with? Is the church? Can they speak for God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 06/03/11 05:53 PM
|
|
why? when GENDER is a SIGNIFICANT factor in creating a child should it suddenly have no MERIT or SIGNIFICANCE In raising one? Because there can be good parents as heterosexuals, just as much as homosexuals, even as much as single parents. Gender does not automatically equal a good parent nor should it be the main factor looked at. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't we just make a list of people who might not be as acceptable as a heterosexual couple. Is being heterosexual the only requirement for the best possible couple for adopting a child? Or would a Christian couple where the man had a great income and the woman was a home maker be the best possible couple. Wouldn't that be better than most other kinds of couples? What you are is old world traditional. You like marriage, the man works, the woman cooks and cleans and raises the children. Ozzie and Harriet. Little house on the Prairie. Typical family values kind of guy. Yes, in a perfect world maybe according to you. But that is not the real world. You are pretty close with the exception of what I think a man and woman should do in a marriage. I have no problem with my wife working if she chooses. I would be very proud of her if she chooses to. I would also be very proud of her if she chose to stay at home to raise the kids. I would be willing to stay at home and raise the kids if that worked best as well. But being a man, I feel responsible to provide for and protect my family. So in general, I would love for her to want to stay home but I certainly wouldn't try to talk her into that if she wanted to work. As far as what is good to be as adoptive parents, I wouldn't want a devil worshiper to adopt but other than that, if they have a good home, that is all that really would matter. I don't care what their faith is. I may take a second look if they were Muslim, but mostly because of how oppressive their faith is. There have been honor killings of children in the US before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every studied I have ever heard on the news said kids do better in a heterosexual home. I don't know when or where they were done. I am only going off what I have heard since the 80s.
What you heard was somebody's lame opinion. There were NO STUDIES. So, when I heard on the news, "XYZ did a study that showed..." they made up the study and just gave their opinion? By the way, I don't watch Fox news and never did. So you can toss that argument out the window... Saying (claiming) that you heard on the news "XYZ did a studdy that showed..." with no real references or proof or information about the study or how it was conducted or when equals this conclusion: THERE WERE NO SUCH STUDIES. I guess I imagined it every time then. I have heard a news story like that on ABC, NBC or CBS at least 6 times. you can deny it if you like. I know what I heard which is in part why I hold my opinion. I believe you heard such a thing. But there is a lot of propaganda on the news. Studies like this are done with people who have agenda's. If you can't name these people and name the study you can't present it as evidence to me. It is as if there were no studies. So, there were no studies if I cannot investigate them. You can go investigate if you so desire. You know as much as I do at this point. I would have to search for a study the same way you would. I know what I heard and I really don't care if you accept it as evidence or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as what is good to be as adoptive parents, I wouldn't want a devil worshiper to adopt but other than that, if they have a good home, that is all that really would matter. I don't care what their faith is. I may take a second look if they were Muslim, but mostly because of how oppressive their faith is. There have been honor killings of children in the US before. Could make the argument that Christianity at times can be as oppressive. Just saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say homosexuals can't be good parents. I said kids would be better off in a heterosexual home with a male and female role model.
You still have not answered my question about why you think that. Um, because there is a male and female roll model to grow up with... Didn't I already say that a few times? THATS YOUR ANSWER? Why is that better? Are these people living in the sticks that the child does not know what a male and female are?? And how do you know there would be no male and female role models in the child's life? Did you grow up with a mom and dad? If so, did you look at your parents as the examples of what a man and woman mean? Did you look at other adults the same way as you did your parents? That is what I mean... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why? when GENDER is a SIGNIFICANT factor in creating a child should it suddenly have no MERIT or SIGNIFICANCE In raising one? Because there can be good parents as heterosexuals, just as much as homosexuals, even as much as single parents. Gender does not automatically equal a good parent nor should it be the main factor looked at. a prostitute is not automatically a bad parent either, or an 'escort', but Im sure it weighs pretty heavily on a decision of adoption based upon the 'environment' that would no doubt accompany that type of lifestyle,,, a prostitute, should not be ruled out as a good parent either, BUT , unless no other options are available, Im sure she would likewise be often pushed down to the bottom of the 'good , better, best' list |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 06/03/11 06:03 PM
|
|
why? when GENDER is a SIGNIFICANT factor in creating a child should it suddenly have no MERIT or SIGNIFICANCE In raising one? Because there can be good parents as heterosexuals, just as much as homosexuals, even as much as single parents. Gender does not automatically equal a good parent nor should it be the main factor looked at. a prostitute is not automatically a bad parent either, or an 'escort', but Im sure it weighs pretty heavily on a decision of adoption based upon the 'environment' that would no doubt accompany that type of lifestyle,,, a prostitute, should not be ruled out as a good parent either, BUT , unless no other options are available, Im sure she would likewise be often pushed down to the bottom of the 'good , better, best' list Here we go with the extremes again.... (sigh) When are you going to understand that a prostitute, a drug addict, is not anywhere CLOSE to a homosexual loving couple? To try and compare them like that, makes you just look plain stupid. It is not a fair comparision AT ALL. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has been shown time and time again that children do best when raised by a heterosexual couple. OMG are you serious? Its 2011 and someone just posted this? No, no, no, no. Children do best when raised by good parents. The lesbian parents I know are some of the best parents I've seen, period. You are making a judgment about who I am that is way off base simply because I don't think homosexual relationships are a good environment as adoptive parents.
Well, his accusation follows pretty directly. I mean, how else could someone be so ignorant as to think that homosexual couples don't make good parents? so, it is 2011. What does that have to do with anything? We are more enlightened now and the thought that a heterosexual couple is good is no longer valid because we are more accepting as a society? Once again you are making yourself as the victim. Nobody is saying that a heterosexual couple is bad for raising a kid, that's just asinine and you know it. We are simply saying, that homosexual couples deserve the same chance to raise a kid as a heterosexual couple does. That's what is meant by saying it's 2011. It's time to change how we think and get rid of old arachic ideas that simply don't work. get rid of old arachic ideas that simply don't work.
Raising a kid in a heterosexual environment doesn't work? Why doesn't it? That is what I have been arguing here. A heterosexual family is better for the kid than a homosexual one because there is both a male and female role model. How is it that is an archaic idea that doesn't work? The only negative to that statement would be to change it to say a heterosexual family is worse for the kid than a homosexual one. That is what your statement means... No, don't put damn words in my mouth. You are constantly doing that! I am NOT saying that raising a kid heterosexual doesn't work, obviously it can and does. But a homosexual can work just as well given the chance. When I speak of archaic ideas, it's the notion that gender has that big a role on parenting vs. the parents ability to raise period, that needs to go away. I'm sorry, but gender DOES have a big role in a child's life. I assume you had a mother and father in your life. Think about growing up without having one or the other at all. Part of raising kids is who you are. You cannot change your gender and both genders have significant differences, both physically and mentally. Women are better at quite a few things just as men are better at others. Kids will miss a big piece of that in a unisex home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why? when GENDER is a SIGNIFICANT factor in creating a child should it suddenly have no MERIT or SIGNIFICANCE In raising one? Because there can be good parents as heterosexuals, just as much as homosexuals, even as much as single parents. Gender does not automatically equal a good parent nor should it be the main factor looked at. a prostitute is not automatically a bad parent either, or an 'escort', but Im sure it weighs pretty heavily on a decision of adoption based upon the 'environment' that would no doubt accompany that type of lifestyle,,, a prostitute, should not be ruled out as a good parent either, BUT , unless no other options are available, Im sure she would likewise be often pushed down to the bottom of the 'good , better, best' list Here we go with the extremes again.... (sigh) When are you going to understand that a prostitute, a drug addict, is not anywhere CLOSE to a homosexual loving couple? To try and compare them like that, makes you just look plain stupid. It is not a fair comparision AT ALL. can you explain why a loving prostitute is not like a loving parent from any other demographic? isnt that a discriminatory attitude? whats stupid about it? to say its nothing close seems quite 'discriminatory' to me..... wasnt it posted before what people do in their personal life shouldnt be anyones business so as long as a parent loves a child, what difference does it make what their sexual lifestyle is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't we just make a list of people who might not be as acceptable as a heterosexual couple. Is being heterosexual the only requirement for the best possible couple for adopting a child? Or would a Christian couple where the man had a great income and the woman was a home maker be the best possible couple. Wouldn't that be better than most other kinds of couples? What you are is old world traditional. You like marriage, the man works, the woman cooks and cleans and raises the children. Ozzie and Harriet. Little house on the Prairie. Typical family values kind of guy. Yes, in a perfect world maybe according to you. But that is not the real world. You are pretty close with the exception of what I think a man and woman should do in a marriage. I have no problem with my wife working if she chooses. I would be very proud of her if she chooses to. I would also be very proud of her if she chose to stay at home to raise the kids. I would be willing to stay at home and raise the kids if that worked best as well. But being a man, I feel responsible to provide for and protect my family. So in general, I would love for her to want to stay home but I certainly wouldn't try to talk her into that if she wanted to work. As far as what is good to be as adoptive parents, I wouldn't want a devil worshiper to adopt but other than that, if they have a good home, that is all that really would matter. I don't care what their faith is. I may take a second look if they were Muslim, but mostly because of how oppressive their faith is. There have been honor killings of children in the US before. Okay if I were giving up my child for adoption I would definitely not want a Muslim couple to adopt it. I know what they do to the women and its down right criminal. P.S. I don't think Lucifer and the Devil are the same thing. In fact is has been stated that the statue of Liberty symbolizes Lucifer the Light bearer. That was on the History channel and was stated by an expert. If this is mostly a Christian country, why do we have a statue of Lucifer in the New York Harbor? Someone should tear it down. Most people don't know that is what it symbolizes. There are Luciferian cults that do know this though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iZBVh1mHGY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can have your opinion. Why can't I have mine? I don't agree with yours. So what? Why does that bother you so much? They already are going with your opinion. I disagree with what is already happening. Why do you feel you need to defend this so strongly? I never said a homosexual couple was incapable of raising a child. Oh NOWWWWW you're gonna backpedal. If you don't think they are incapable, than give them a damn chance! I don't care if you agree with me or not, you can have your view, but when your view is directly or indirectly effecting others lives as would be in a case like this, that's where I have a problem. And that's where I feel a need to defend this, because this is bad for the kids as it means less chances to find a home for them, and discriminates against loving couples who would love to give them that home. I'm not backpedaling. If you care to look, I always said kids are better off in a heterosexual home. I never said that a homosexual home is bad. This whole debate stared because the Catholic church was forced to decide if allowing a homosexual couple adopt was better than closing their doors. Each was an equally abhorrent choice they had to make. They had to choose the lessor of two evils. Renounce one of their tenants as being false. That is a church body standing up and saying, "We are wrong on what sin is." Or, abandon their cause to help children. Now you're just twisting words, cause you infer that the homosexual home is bad, when you suggest a heterosexual home is better. You can't get around that. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me. No, that is your interpretation of what I mean by better. Levels are good - better - best. I have been thinking all along that a homosexual family can be good. You did not know what was in my head. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me.
Are you now the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Why didn't you say it then to start with? Is the church? Can they speak for God? You never bothered to ask. You just started yelling saying I was wrong. yes, the church can speak for God. But that is a totally different debate that would get way off topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can have your opinion. Why can't I have mine? I don't agree with yours. So what? Why does that bother you so much? They already are going with your opinion. I disagree with what is already happening. Why do you feel you need to defend this so strongly? I never said a homosexual couple was incapable of raising a child. Oh NOWWWWW you're gonna backpedal. If you don't think they are incapable, than give them a damn chance! I don't care if you agree with me or not, you can have your view, but when your view is directly or indirectly effecting others lives as would be in a case like this, that's where I have a problem. And that's where I feel a need to defend this, because this is bad for the kids as it means less chances to find a home for them, and discriminates against loving couples who would love to give them that home. I'm not backpedaling. If you care to look, I always said kids are better off in a heterosexual home. I never said that a homosexual home is bad. This whole debate stared because the Catholic church was forced to decide if allowing a homosexual couple adopt was better than closing their doors. Each was an equally abhorrent choice they had to make. They had to choose the lessor of two evils. Renounce one of their tenants as being false. That is a church body standing up and saying, "We are wrong on what sin is." Or, abandon their cause to help children. Now you're just twisting words, cause you infer that the homosexual home is bad, when you suggest a heterosexual home is better. You can't get around that. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me. No, that is your interpretation of what I mean by better. Levels are good - better - best. I have been thinking all along that a homosexual family can be good. You did not know what was in my head. As for the church, I'd say perhaps admitting they were wrong would be an improvement, because they are, but that's just me.
Are you now the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Why didn't you say it then to start with? Is the church? Can they speak for God? You never bothered to ask. You just started yelling saying I was wrong. Well, if you think they can be good, why not give them a chance to prove it then? Put your money where your mouth is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can you explain why a loving prostitute is not like a loving parent from any other demographic? isnt that a discriminatory attitude?
whats stupid about it? to say its nothing close seems quite 'discriminatory' to me..... wasnt it posted before what people do in their personal life shouldnt be anyones business so as long as a parent loves a child, what difference does it make what their sexual lifestyle is? DUH!! Because prostitution is ILLEGAL in most states. Nevada being the exception. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why? when GENDER is a SIGNIFICANT factor in creating a child should it suddenly have no MERIT or SIGNIFICANCE In raising one? Because there can be good parents as heterosexuals, just as much as homosexuals, even as much as single parents. Gender does not automatically equal a good parent nor should it be the main factor looked at. a prostitute is not automatically a bad parent either, or an 'escort', but Im sure it weighs pretty heavily on a decision of adoption based upon the 'environment' that would no doubt accompany that type of lifestyle,,, a prostitute, should not be ruled out as a good parent either, BUT , unless no other options are available, Im sure she would likewise be often pushed down to the bottom of the 'good , better, best' list Here we go with the extremes again.... (sigh) When are you going to understand that a prostitute, a drug addict, is not anywhere CLOSE to a homosexual loving couple? To try and compare them like that, makes you just look plain stupid. It is not a fair comparision AT ALL. can you explain why a loving prostitute is not like a loving parent from any other demographic? isnt that a discriminatory attitude? whats stupid about it? to say its nothing close seems quite 'discriminatory' to me..... wasnt it posted before what people do in their personal life shouldnt be anyones business so as long as a parent loves a child, what difference does it make what their sexual lifestyle is? Ok, now you're just baiting me. I refuse to get in a circular argument with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as what is good to be as adoptive parents, I wouldn't want a devil worshiper to adopt but other than that, if they have a good home, that is all that really would matter. I don't care what their faith is. I may take a second look if they were Muslim, but mostly because of how oppressive their faith is. There have been honor killings of children in the US before. Could make the argument that Christianity at times can be as oppressive. Just saying. Um, not even close. That would be like comparing a mansion to a hovel and saying they are the same because they both provide shelter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can you explain why a loving prostitute is not like a loving parent from any other demographic? isnt that a discriminatory attitude?
whats stupid about it? to say its nothing close seems quite 'discriminatory' to me..... wasnt it posted before what people do in their personal life shouldnt be anyones business so as long as a parent loves a child, what difference does it make what their sexual lifestyle is? DUH!! Because prostitution is ILLEGAL in most states. Nevada being the exception. Not only that, but that environment is not healthy for the kid anyway, and you damn well know it msharmony. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as what is good to be as adoptive parents, I wouldn't want a devil worshiper to adopt but other than that, if they have a good home, that is all that really would matter. I don't care what their faith is. I may take a second look if they were Muslim, but mostly because of how oppressive their faith is. There have been honor killings of children in the US before. Could make the argument that Christianity at times can be as oppressive. Just saying. Um, not even close. That would be like comparing a mansion to a hovel and saying they are the same because they both provide shelter. Explain what's different from a Muslim man pushing his religion on his kids, and a Christian man pushing his? |
|
|
|
|
