| Ethics & Morality A forum for the discussion and debate of ethics & morality open to all members. |
 | | 
28th October 2009, 02:34 PM
|  | Senior Contributor
54   
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,601
Blessings: 7,931,841 My Mood 
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | To Psudopod, No, we’re talking about children who are already in existence.
because of man/woman couples so its crucial that’s why I pointed it out. I’m asking if you have any evidence that a same sex couple would do worse at raising a child, compared to an opposite sex one.
Yes its outside reality if there are two sexes which reproduce. The only reason you pose the question is because you don’t recognise the reality. And my answer is as it takes both sexes to reproduce the children nature has provided two sexes so a same sex couple is at odds with what nature has provided. But does raising the child require two parents, one of each sex?
Yes of course why do you think two sexes exist in the first place? Just because it doesn’t fit your particular worldview doesn’t mean its not reality. Given that historically, a child may have be raised by a group of related females (mother, grandmother, older sisters, aunts etc) or completely unrelated adults (wet nurse, nanny, tutors, governess etc); and in modern societies studies have shown that children raised by same sex parents suffer no detriment mentally, physically, educationally etc when compared with peers raised by opposite sex parents, why do you think it is necessary to restrict the number of potential adoptive parents.
This is largely true, but there are also tales of animals raising children, but nature or God has given us male and female so between same sex and male and female, male and female is what society should have. Also you have mixed the information, those related are also more appropriate to raise the children than same sex coupled by their sexual dysfunction. And there are all kinds of studies around with all kinds of agendas which don’t reflect reality. Think about it, with a male/female couple, if it is a girl then the girl at least has a female parent, if it’s a boy the boy at least has a male parent. I mean, if the sex of the parents and children isn’t important than where is the basis of your argument, just have what exists in reality, both male and female. I’m not proposing it like it’s a new thing. Same sex couples exist, many raise children, some of whom are adopted. Why should this stop?
So as I didn’t ask you that I’ll ask again. My question to you is why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?  |
28th October 2009, 02:37 PM
|  | Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
63    
| | Join Date: 4th September 2003 Location: USA
Posts: 10,239
Blessings: 2,246,411
Reps: 252,914,500,256,318,656 (power: 252,914,500,256,337) | | [quote=brightmorningstar;53355076]To Psudopod,
Yes of course we are, Its a requirement, otherwise where do you think the children come from in adoption?
We’re talking about adoption. The child is already born. I’m asking if you have any evidence that a same sex couple would do worse at raising a child, compared to an opposite sex one. [/quote And my answer is as it takes both sexes to reproduce the children nature has provided two sexes so a same sex couple is at odds with what nature has provided. My question to you is why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes? So your position would be, if one parent abandons, separates from, or divorces the other, or is killed, the children should be taken away from the now single parent and given to a couple? If not, distinguish between what the single remaining parent can provide the child and what a same-sex couple can.
__________________ "It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus "You've got to be taught before it's too late / Before you are six or seven or eight / To hate all the people your relatives hate / You've got to be carefully taught." - Oscar Hammerstein II |
28th October 2009, 02:38 PM
| | Senior Contributor
54
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,601
Blessings: 7,931,841 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | To Psudopod, But this benifit has not been shown. The benefit of same sex has not been shown and its detriment cant yet be shown as adoption by same sex couples as sexual partnerships like marriage is too new. Just because something is normal does not make it right. It does when the alternative doesnt exist. Same sex couples cant reproduce chidren. i |
28th October 2009, 02:52 PM
| | Senior Contributor
54
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,601
Blessings: 7,931,841 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | To Polycarp1, So your position would be, if one parent abandons, separates from, or divorces the other, or is killed, the children should be taken away from the now single parent and given to a couple?
No. If not, distinguish between what the single remaining parent can provide the child and what a same-sex couple can.
Sorry but if you addressed my point you will see a same sex couple lacks both sexes so leave the child with the single parent. If the children lose both parents give the chidren to a singel parent or a male female couple, dont give them to a same sex couple, thats dysfunctional.
Why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes? If you dont see a significant enough difference in the sexes why are there two sexes? |
28th October 2009, 03:00 PM
|  | Senior Member
59  
| | Join Date: 16th January 2008
Posts: 6,543
Blessings: 4,156,635
Reps: 107,496,095,549,249,776 (power: 107,496,095,549,260) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper  Well, I do not believe single women, single men, or homosexual couples should be in the foster care system. The ideal would be for a child to go to a foster care home and that child and those foster parents (a married husband & wife) coming to an agreement that they should remain as a family.
The reality is that most get adopted unless there are serious medical complications with the child that would require extreme measures, or the child is emotionally dangerous. My guess is that even most homosexual "couples" wouldn't want their decor ruined...
Yea, most. Which only means over half. Someone already posted here that about 25% only get out of the foster care system by turning 18.
Though I can see why you don't want same sex couples adapting. Your line about decor makes it clear you think in terms of a steriotype that is almost a parody. |
28th October 2009, 03:45 PM
|  | Iconoclast
45 
| | Join Date: 18th February 2004
Posts: 2,304
Blessings: 44,059,029 My Mood 
Reps: 9,498,085,865,820,920 (power: 9,498,085,865,830) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar Why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?
"The whole question of children" is a meaningless statement.
Two sexes are required to produce a child. That has nothing to do with [i]raising[i] a child.
Why is this SO hard to understand for some people?
__________________ R.I.P. GA |
28th October 2009, 04:23 PM
|  | Contributor
 
| | Join Date: 9th March 2005 Location: MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
Posts: 9,179
Blessings: 116,985
Reps: 18,563,956,112,384,120 (power: 18,563,956,112,400) | | Originally Posted by keith99 Yea, most. Which only means over half. Someone already posted here that about 25% only get out of the foster care system by turning 18.
Though I can see why you don't want same sex couples adapting. Your line about decor makes it clear you think in terms of a steriotype that is almost a parody.
Is the parody that far off the mark? Do they, in general, not see themselves as "artistic." Do not TV shows in an effort to embrace "homosexuality" not portray flamboyant qualities as desirable attributes?
Foster parents are not the worse thing in the world. Many have helped to raise countless children to wonderful adulthood... |
28th October 2009, 04:30 PM
|  | Seemly Unseelie
32  
 | | Join Date: 27th September 2004 Location: CSRA
Posts: 4,473
Blessings: 2,273,895 My Mood 
Reps: 59,243,360,003,904,480 (power: 59,243,360,003,916) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper Is the parody that far off the mark? Do they, in general, not see themselves as "artistic." Do not TV shows in an effort to embrace "homosexuality" not portray flamboyant qualities as desirable attributes?
TV shows also depict that there are those among us with superpowers, that a high school girl in Cali is a prophesied vampire killer, that med students live lives of high drama and intensity/high comedy and romance, and that community college Spanish teachers of Asian heritage are angry, bitter little men.
In other words - pointing to fiction to support your point is fail.
__________________ I am the microcosmic reflection of God Herself. I get to make up my own religion. I got my permission slip signed. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
28th October 2009, 04:33 PM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 19th April 2004
Posts: 3,357
Blessings: 51,323
Reps: 831,305,512,503 (power: 831,305,523) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar To Psudopod,
The benefit of same sex has not been shown and its detriment cant yet be shown as adoption by same sex couples as sexual partnerships like marriage is too new. It does when the alternative doesnt exist. Same sex couples cant reproduce chidren. i
The burden of proof to show why same-sex relationships are less ideal for raising children than opposite-sex lies with you. Appeal to tradition has been proven over and over throughout history as false. Because they can't reproduce is a non sequitur. Try again because you have nothing. What's sad is you can't grasp why what you're saying is irrational, inconsistent and false. |
28th October 2009, 04:44 PM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 19th April 2004
Posts: 3,357
Blessings: 51,323
Reps: 831,305,512,503 (power: 831,305,523) | | Originally Posted by ToddNotTodd "The whole question of children" is a meaningless statement.
Two sexes are required to produce a child. That has nothing to do with [i]raising[i] a child.
Why is this SO hard to understand for some people?
Because they can't separate the emotion from their arguments due to engrained beliefs they've held their entire life. They lack the capacity to change as they've become to heavily invested in their beliefs and irrationally defend them.
This is why time and the passing of generations is best for change. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
