Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The norm should be one fully committed male parent and one fully committed female parent. Furthermore, those parents should be biologically related to the child. In the absence of a mother or father, an aunt or uncle, or even a grandparent can fill in and should be the first to do so because no one is capable of loving a child like his or her own biological relatives. The new girlfriend or boyfriend can't do it.
So that is the "norm" for you. If thats the type of family you grew up in congrats. You are one of the very few. I know many many successful and well adjusted people that were raised in single family homes. Regarding the bold/underlined part....complete and utter nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The stats on children of divorced parents are out there for all to see and are certainly nothing newsworthy. Growing up is hard enough under the most ideal circumstances. Adding divorce or experimental parenting models to the equation just makes life all the more difficult.
I believe this to be a case by case basis. Depending on the situation you could be correct but you can't make the blanket statement that any kid from a non traditional family isn't going to turn out right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
At some point we got away from teaching our children that their commitment to their family was more important than their own selfish ambition. The thirty years they give up to raise happy healthy kids who grow up to be responsible and productive adults cannot be deferred and must not be denied.
So is it better to raise a child in a loveless, sometimes violent enviroment because the parents are honoring the commitment of marriage? Is it healthy to see a father "stepping out" on a mother because he doesn't love her anymore....or a mother having men over while dad is at work? According to your statements thats a healthy enviroment to raise a child because.....they're sticking together. come on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
As for quasi altruistic homosexuals who would adopt unrelated children, play house with your own lives and leave these children out of it. Using at risk children and the institution of marriage to envelop unnatural and highly stigmatized sexual relationships in a cocoon of pseudo normalcy and socialized respectability exposes an improper and self-serving motive behind their desire to adopt.
Most of those children that are up for adoption are there for a reason. The biological parent(s) are unable to care for a child. Either mentally, emotionally, or physically. If a child can be raised in an enviroment where it will be cared for, nurtured and loved I could give a DAMN what the sexual orientation of the adoptove parents are.
Most dislike of gays (in the United States, anyway) stems from Christian teaching of homosexual acts as sinful. Now, if it turns out that homosexuality is an inate trait, as opposed to a choice, then Christians are faced with the fact that the deity they worship created gays. This pretty much makes their deity an evil being for condemning people for acting on the sexual orientation he gave them.
What to do, for a pious Christian? Ignore all evidence to the contrary and insist that homosexuality is a choice.
It's classic religious behavior: if the evidence doesn't square with ancient texts written by hopelessly ignorant desert tribesmen then either ignore that evidence of insist its all false.
Some other dislike of gays simply stems from people who are afraid of their own sexuality, or simply find homsexuality disgusting. They, too, find it more convenient to portray homosexuality as a choice. This stance makes it easier to justify laws oppressing gays. This is classic bullying behavior.
You'll never convince most of them otherwise. Remember, this are the same people who insist that global warming is a fraud perpetrator by a massive conspiracy of... well, of most climatologists the world over. And the same people, by and large, who a generation ago were telling us all that smoking really wasn't bad for people.
Denialism 101.
You left out the part about the same Bible teaching man is a fallen creature. Obviously if man is imperfect, so is his genetic make up.
If we look at it strictly through the prism of natural selection, we could speculate that a certain number of otherwise healthy individuals have a mutation which serves no biologically productive purpose. Compare it to color blindness, only it's sexual attraction to one's own sex.
Neither condition signals the end of the species, but the propagation of the underlying gene(s) doesn't benefit the species either.
Good question and another good one is why some folks think they know more about gays than gay folks do.
Another good one is why don't people research before making idiotic statements....like we chose to be gay.......it just makes them look like bigoted idiots!
Just ask the American Psychiatrric and American Psychological Associations for a good, professional and scientific start>>>>>
You've explained why you WANT to...but what FORCES you?
What a horribly lame argument... another gem from you. Obvioulsy no one is forced to act on sexual attractions or impulses, but this is entirely irrelevant to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is natural. Acting on those attractions is a natural and logical conclusion.
Some of you want to, yet again, bring up pedophilia (seriously, I think some of you must be turned on by it to bring it up so often), yet there is at least a few major differences. First, pedophilia involves a non-consenting partner. Second, it is psychologically damaging to at least one half of the relationship and involves mental imbalances on the part of the pedophile. None of this is true for gays or gay relationships.
But really, it's not like you're interested in facts. You're just the kind of small person that sees something they don't understand and wants to destroy it.
Neither is truth dictated by what people feel and have the urge to do. Truth has nothing to do with those things.
The sexual act has only one ultimate purpose: pro-creation. Sex for anything else is inferior to that purpose.
It's no wonder some of you are so obsessed with the sex lives of others. Believing this kind of nonsense must leave you the most sexually frustrated people on the planet.
The constitution does not specifically address the topic of marriage. Can you point that out to me?
The 14th Amendment covers civil marriage law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
come on...
