Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2008, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,164 posts, read 27,157,142 times
Reputation: 10428

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsburg View Post
I thought the 5 billion exclamation points I used would've tipped you off to the sarcasm, which then would've made my post relevant to the thread/quotation.
My bad
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2008, 04:16 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,408 posts, read 12,643,078 times
Reputation: 2270
ya you guys lost me for a second...

back to the show.

anyone willing to open their homes to a special needs child is A OK in my book. be they of the homosexual or heterosexual persuasion.

I have always thought of this, but i dont know if i can be as strong, patient or dedicated. im sure i would be as good a parent as now, but it just seems so hard. my hats off to them.

and too bad someone like that woman does not see how wonderful they are as caring human beings. two human beings tryin to make this place a better world.

i think her prejudice blinds her to the true beauty of this family.

call them what you will, they have opened up their hearts and home to children who really need it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2008, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Catonsville, MD
2,358 posts, read 5,975,072 times
Reputation: 1711
gradco posted basically the same question over in the Religion and Philosophy forum and I feel strongly enough about this topic that I'm reposting my comments here in this thread:

Five years ago this week, I was at an orphanage in Russia with my husband while we were in the process of adopting our now nearly 6 year old daughter. If close-minded people could visit this orphanage (or the thousands of other orphanages around the world as well as the foster homes here in this country,) they would see the faces of children who just want to be loved and be in a family - any family. I have never felt such yearning as I did in the faces of these children who knew we were there to adopt a child, but they knew we were not there for them. It was truly heartbreaking. While our adoption of our daughter was and continues to be a wonderful thing, my memories of visiting the orphanage bring me to tears. We did go back to adopt a second daughter from the same orphanage and it was no easier the second time. In fact, it was harder because we knew 2 was our limit financially.

If people are saying gays should not adopt, they need to take a good, hard look at the thousands upon thousands of children who will grow up without a family to love them. In Russia, the majority of children who age out of the orphanage system at 16 go to a life of crime, prostitution or suicide (well above 50%.) It is an abomination to me that some people oppose gays adopting on so-called moral grounds. Is it better to allow innocent children to languish in orphanages or foster homes? To me, that is immoral and anybody who thinks a child would be better off in an orphanage than in a loving home is undeserving of a place in heaven.

This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, despite the fact that I am not gay. Flame away if you'd like, but unless you've seen the sadness in the eyes of a child in an orphanage, you need to keep your 'morality' to yourself.

Gradco - I don't know what your views are on this topic (I couldn't tell from your post.) My comments above are in general, not necessarily directed at you.

Finally - I did not mean to dis foster families in the above post, only foster homes where love is not the reason why people take in foster children. Fostering must be incredibly difficult given the proclivities of our child welfare system here in this country. So, hats off to those of you who open up your hearts and homes to children who need a temporary place to call home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 12:07 AM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,826,004 times
Reputation: 23660
Absolutely, cmacf1... and kudos to you for adopting those precious children. If I reach a certain age without being married (I'm 31 now), I will definitely consider adopting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Zebulon, NC
2,275 posts, read 6,297,465 times
Reputation: 3622
I watched this show last night, and my husband and I watched it again this morning on the DVR. (He was asleep last night.)

My issue with her isn't that she believes it's wrong. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, even if I don't agree with them. What makes me so very angry is when she, and others, want to force everyone in the country to live according to her beliefs.

If she doesn't believe that homosexuals should raise a child, then fine. She shouldn't shack up with a woman and raise a child. But don't tell someone else they can't.

When she was in Detroit with the man and woman who had aged out of the foster care system, it was as if she was saying, "I'm so sorry and am crying about the conditions in which you were raised. But at least you weren't raised by homosexuals!"

It's as if people can't separate the love from the sex. Love is love, whether it's between people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex. She would sit there in the middle of a large group of people, and tell them that their love was unnatural and wrong. Yet when someone asked her if she'd rather see the boys in question raised in the foster system rather than the loving home they now have, she storms out and starts sobbing, claiming to be offended. Can she not see how offensive it is to call people unnatural?

The final straw for me was when she said, "I have to decide whether I'm going to judge these people, or love them for who they are." Excuse me? It's not her place to judge. What about "Judge no, lest ye be judged?" What about "Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord?"

I'll stop now before my head explodes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 07:39 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,926,728 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire_F View Post
I watched this show last night, and my husband and I watched it again this morning on the DVR. (He was asleep last night.)

My issue with her isn't that she believes it's wrong. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, even if I don't agree with them. What makes me so very angry is when she, and others, want to force everyone in the country to live according to her beliefs.

If she doesn't believe that homosexuals should raise a child, then fine. She shouldn't shack up with a woman and raise a child. But don't tell someone else they can't.

When she was in Detroit with the man and woman who had aged out of the foster care system, it was as if she was saying, "I'm so sorry and am crying about the conditions in which you were raised. But at least you weren't raised by homosexuals!"

It's as if people can't separate the love from the sex. Love is love, whether it's between people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex. She would sit there in the middle of a large group of people, and tell them that their love was unnatural and wrong. Yet when someone asked her if she'd rather see the boys in question raised in the foster system rather than the loving home they now have, she storms out and starts sobbing, claiming to be offended. Can she not see how offensive it is to call people unnatural?

The final straw for me was when she said, "I have to decide whether I'm going to judge these people, or love them for who they are." Excuse me? It's not her place to judge. What about "Judge no, lest ye be judged?" What about "Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord?"

I'll stop now before my head explodes.
My problem with this is that the person is picked for these "shows" due to the weight they give support to the bias the person making the show has. This guy has already lost credibility with his "super size me" farce which was a "conditioned study" specifically tailored to support his conclusion.

If the show was merely to explain how "people" can have beliefs that are illogically founded, then so be it, but this is in no way an accurate account of the reasoning behind many who oppose this who do have valid and logical concerns with the issue.

Lastly, Christians are not to judge the person for that is only unto God. We can judge the sin and the Bible tells us to not tolerate or accept it, to lead those away from it, cut it out of our lives and to run from it even if we are unable to resist its lure.

To me this was nothing more than a show trying to label an entire group using a logical fallacy. Typical for this guy, he is much like Michael Moore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Zebulon, NC
2,275 posts, read 6,297,465 times
Reputation: 3622
I understand that you have an issue with Morgan Spurlock. However, I was not discussing him - I was discussing the woman on the show. Regardless of how she was selected, there are many, many people who feel the same way as she.

Quote:
Lastly, Christians are not to judge the person for that is only unto God. We can judge the sin and the Bible tells us to not tolerate or accept it, to lead those away from it, cut it out of our lives and to run from it even if we are unable to resist its lure.
Yes, Christians are not to judge the person. Hence my issue with her grappling with a decision whether or not to judge the people in question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 08:28 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,926,728 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire_F View Post
I understand that you have an issue with Morgan Spurlock. However, I was not discussing him - I was discussing the woman on the show. Regardless of how she was selected, there are many, many people who feel the same way as she.

Yes, Christians are not to judge the person. Hence my issue with her grappling with a decision whether or not to judge the people in question.
Agreed, but my point is merely that while there are many who believe that way, they do not represent the majority and it would be irresponsible to suggest that it is so which is exactly what Spurlock does. Also, this begs the question as to how much is edited to show a certain light which may also lend to some issues.

It would be like me using a brutal crime committed by a black man here in Dallas who was without remorse for the killing of two Christian song writers. When asked if he had anthing to say to the family of those he killed, he basically said "F'um".

That display could then be used to claim many fallacies. One could claim black people hate Christians or claim that all black people are thugs, etc...
The point is, it could be displayed in a manner as to give credence to these false claims and those who are already touchy on the issue might be easily influenced by it. Happens all the time.

Basically, this show is a poor medium to come to any conclusions on and much like the above example, the fact that there are some people with confused beliefs, doesn't offer any support to the conclusions suggested and his show specifically puts into light his intended result of a conclusion.

I agree with you about the issue judging, but I just think any credence given to this show is really promoting further misinformation on the truth of the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Zebulon, NC
2,275 posts, read 6,297,465 times
Reputation: 3622
If her beliefs weren't so widely held, parental rights would be legally granted to both people in a homosexual relationship. As it stands now, they're not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2008, 08:49 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,926,728 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire_F View Post
If her beliefs weren't so widely held, parental rights would be legally granted to both people in a homosexual relationship. As it stands now, they're not.
You mistake the application of her belief (her ability to logically and properly use her belief to support the position) as the position of the majority when it is not. There are logical arguments that use the scripture in accordance with its context to properly explain the issue. There are many other non-religious stances which also logically support the opposition to this.

This shows goal was to label that majority as having an illogically founded belief that violates even its own proclaimed principals. It appears you even believe that from this very response. As I said, this is nothing more than propaganda driven to build a straw man of the position of those who oppose this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top