Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Polycarp1]

You had homosexual sex that led to you or your partner getting pregnant and having a child?

Please do not just openly insult my intelligence. I have in fact on occasion allowed as adoptive families are real, but there is a sense, a biological one, in which they are not, and if the truth is going to make you furious with me then I cannot help that.

No one is faulting anyone for adoption, but there is a distinction between adoption and actual, factual blood relationships.

Should you care to discuss how important non-genetic issues of family are, I could understand, but you seem determined to twist my words in order to invent a reason to take offense so that no one is allowed to then draw a very clear and real distinction.

So a woman who has biological children and who allows her unmarried paramours to abuse and beat those children is in some way a better 'mother' to them than a couple who might adopt them and give them a loving, nurturing, healthy upbringing? A man or woman who has a biological child and who then enters into a same-sex marital union is somehow no longer the child's biological parent? His or her same-sex spouse who loves the child parentally is not functioning as a parent?

You're painting an ideal Father Knows Best family vs. a stereotype of homosexuality -- and there's a lot of gap between your extremes -- that's a "fact" you seem not to deal with.

Your "very clear and real" distinction -- isn't, in the reality of society.

 

[b&wpac4]

Could someone please answer me why the same people that fight not to "indoctrinate children" with what amounts to usually being tolerance training are also the same ones that want "God in the schools" and "Prayers to Jesus"?

 

[Philothei]

No one is saying that adoptive families are biological. But that still doesn't make them less 'real', or less worthy of protections afforded to biological families.

again compairing a heterosexual pair of parents that to homosexual parenthood....Apples and oranges. Straw man at work here since your example is not on the "adoption" part but at the nature of the parents identified as one female and one male. To bring in the adoptive family with heterosexual parents is totally irrelevant. No one says that adoption is wrong. Adoption of a homosexual couple is problematic...as is parenthood. We do not argue about adoption here by a homosexual couple rather "parenthood" of a homosexual couple that is problematic.

It is the same with marriage. It is NOT and NEVER was between homosexuals but heterosexuals.

 

[Philothei]

So a woman who has biological children and who allows her unmarried paramours to abuse and beat those children is in some way a better 'mother' to them than a couple who might adopt them and give them a loving, nurturing, healthy upbringing? A man or woman who has a biological child and who then enters into a same-sex marital union is somehow no longer the child's biological parent? His or her same-sex spouse who loves the child parentally is not functioning as a parent?

You're painting an ideal Father Knows Best family vs. a stereotype of homosexuality -- and there's a lot of gap between your extremes -- that's a "fact" you seem not to deal with.

Your "very clear and real" distinction -- isn't, in the reality of society.

Are you implying (by bringing the example) that homosexual families are "as bad as a single mother family"? Because if you do that you do not prove to me that homosexual parents are "good" either see??? That is the fallacy for those who try to "defend" the homosexual unions and families...They cannot stand on defending them but ONLY by comparison... Nice

 

[Philothei]

Could someone please answer me why the same people that fight not to "indoctrinate children" with what amounts to usually being tolerance training are also the same ones that want "God in the schools" and "Prayers to Jesus"?

Why making the correlation for ? The atheist child can just contemplate of do something else during prayer time. A two minute of silence is indocrination into religion? But a seminar on "Gay and Lesbian" lifestyle with visual aids and talks is not?? By far the agenda is obvious...and to top it off all Christian holidays are played down. That oughta to tell you something.

 

[b&wpac4]

Why making the correlation for ? The atheist child can just contemplate of do something else during prayer time. A two minute of silence is indocrination into religion? But a seminar on "Gay and Lesbian" lifestyle with visual aids and talks is not?? By far the agenda is obvious...and to top it off all Christian holidays are played down. That oughta to tell you something.

Thank you for proving the double standard. Congratulations.

 

[flicka]

It is the same with marriage. It is NOT and NEVER was between homosexuals but heterosexuals.

Marriage can be defined however we want to. We have the power.

 

[beechy]

again compairing a heterosexual pair of parents that to homosexual parenthood....Apples and oranges. Straw man at work here since your example is not on the "adoption" part but at the nature of the parents identified as one female and one male. To bring in the adoptive family with heterosexual parents is totally irrelevant. No one says that adoption is wrong. Adoption of a homosexual couple is problematic...as is parenthood. We do not argue about adoption here by a homosexual couple rather "parenthood" of a homosexual couple that is problematic.

Why is homosexual parenthood problematic?

 

[Philothei]

Thank you for proving the double standard. Congratulations.

thank you but how is it? Two minutes of silence is truly indocrinization and a week long of Gay and Lesbian awarness "seminar" is not? If you are going to explain it I would be very willing to listen

 

[FlamingFemme]

again compairing a heterosexual pair of parents that to homosexual parenthood....Apples and oranges. Straw man at work here since your example is not on the "adoption" part but at the nature of the parents identified as one female and one male. To bring in the adoptive family with heterosexual parents is totally irrelevant. No one says that adoption is wrong. Adoption of a homosexual couple is problematic...as is parenthood. We do not argue about adoption here by a homosexual couple rather "parenthood" of a homosexual couple that is problematic.

It is the same with marriage. It is NOT and NEVER was between homosexuals but heterosexuals.

Okay, so basically, even though my partner and I are BOTH our daughter's legal parents, we're not parents? Homosexuals can adopt, but that still doesn't make them PARENTS? REALLY?
Even though we BOTH contribute to her health and well-being? Even though we BOTH praise her when she's done something well, and BOTH discipline her when she's done something wrong? Even though we BOTH make sure that she has food to eat, clothes on her back, a roof over her head, and someone to be there to comfort and praise her when she needs it?
Even taking into account all of this, you still maintain that we are not her parents??
As to the second statement I bolded, you are unequivocally WRONG. In MA, there is gay marriage. In VT, there is gay marriage. In IA, there is gay marriage. In NH, there is gay marriage. In Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, there is gay marriage. So, your statement that marriage is 'NOT and NEVER was between homosexuals' is an outright lie.

 

[b&wpac4]

thank you but how is it? Two minutes of silence is truly indocrinization and a week long of Gay and Lesbian awarness "seminar" is not? If you are going to explain it I would be very willing to listen

Because usually a "moment of silence" isn't enough. Most people seem to push for a specifically Christian prayer to be said. You know, in Jesus' name and all that. These same people would buck at the idea of a completely Muslim prayer being said in schools.

Also, that you want the holidays recognized in school for what they are. That's fine. Are you ok if they learn about other holidays in the same way? Muslim holidays, pagan ones? If your answer is no, then you are showing double-standard.

 

[Philothei]

My answer is of course yes. Thus the moment of silence ... so that no one is presenting their own faith...but has a right to say their own prayers BTW mulsims are allowed to pray at certain schools but Christians are not......how about that?

 

[b&wpac4]

My answer is of course yes. Thus the moment of silence ... so that no one is presenting their own faith...but has a right to say their own prayers BTW mulsims are allowed to pray at certain schools but Christians are not......how about that?

What schools are Christians not allowed to pray at?

 

[Shane Roach]

Because usually a "moment of silence" isn't enough. Most people seem to push for a specifically Christian prayer to be said. You know, in Jesus' name and all that. These same people would buck at the idea of a completely Muslim prayer being said in schools.

Also, that you want the holidays recognized in school for what they are. That's fine. Are you ok if they learn about other holidays in the same way? Muslim holidays, pagan ones? If your answer is no, then you are showing double-standard.

I've heard both moments of silence that stayed silent and prayers that were truly non-specific.

I believe when I was in school, somewhere around Jr. High it got to be moments of silence, and we all just remained silent. I don't recall anyone ever praying out loud, in the room or otherwise.

Where is there any evidence this was not what was happening, and why not simply stop folks from making noise during the moment of silence?

In defense of gay marriage, every violation of our religious freedom is brought up and glorified, and then you ask me what bothers me about homosexuals?

 

[Shane Roach]

What schools are Christians not allowed to pray at?

Any of them, over the intercoms their parents paid for, at any time and under any circumstance.

We are being indoctrinated to atheism.

 

[b&wpac4]

In defense of gay marriage, every violation of our religious freedom is brought up and glorified, and then you ask me what bothers me about homosexuals?

I have religious freedom myself. It is not horded by a single group. It is all of ours.

 

[Shane Roach]

I really do believe Christians should simply withdraw support of every kind from this nation. Pray only for the leaders who respect God. Get kids out of public schools. Organize again "public" schools but that are not run by the government, that are truly public, directly run by the people and not through any governmental institution.

Minimize the use of every goverment resource. Come closer together, rely on one another. that is how we have been destroyed -- we have come to be closer to our tv's and our conveniences, all owned at some level by elites and governed by elites. We cannot do anything on our own anymore, so we are now dependant on those who hate us, and express their contempt constantly in the most vile ways they can come up with.

If this nation is not Christian, let it be anti-Christian without our assitence and support. Maybe God would even destroy this nation, and maybe, just maybe, birth a new one in its place, if His people truly wanted that. If they truly took a stand.

 

[b&wpac4]

If this nation is not Christian, let it be anti-Christian without our assitence and support. Maybe God would even destroy this nation, and maybe, just maybe, birth a new one in its place, if His people truly wanted that. If they truly took a stand.

Why is it assumed that those who are not Christian are anti-Christian. Are you anti-everything-not-Christian? If you are, do you truly, honestly believe that is that way you are supposed to be?

 

[YamiB]

Any of them, over the intercoms their parents paid for, at any time and under any circumstance.

We are being indoctrinated to atheism.

Secular is not pro-atheist. Promoting atheism would be teaching kids there is no higher power, no soul, no afterlife, etc. Not making any statements for or against is neutral on the matter is the only way to have fairness. But of course it seems you don't want freedom of religion, you want to destroy America to make a theocracy.

 

[FlamingFemme]

If this nation is not Christian, let it be anti-Christian without our assitence and support. Maybe God would even destroy this nation, and maybe, just maybe, birth a new one in its place, if His people truly wanted that. If they truly took a stand.

Why do you feel it can only be one or the other? Why can't this nation be not Christian, in the same way it is not Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Hindu, or Buddhist? Just because we are not a Christian nation, does not mean that we are ANTI-Christian. It simply means that our laws are not based upon one particular religious belief, but instead laws are passed that are for the common good, regardless of religious belief. While many of our founding fathers were, in fact, Christian, others were deists, or not religious at all. The Constitution was written to make sure that none of us would be forced to adhere to one specific religious belief system. Even if you could make the argument that 'since the majority of Americans are Christian, this must be a Christian Nation', it has been shown that not all sects of Christianity agree with each other on everything, so which denomination would prevail? Would this be a Protestant Nation? Or Maybe a Southern Baptist Nation? Or how about an Episcopalian Nation? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Who gets to decide?
See the problem?
Laws do not get passed because a particular religion says it should. Our legislators and courts are charged with passing laws and interpreting the Constitution secularly, and not by consulting the Bible.
Passing a law based purely on religious belief is unconstitutional in the most basic sense.
Which is why the gay community has such a problem with those of you who believe that gay marriage should be banned, on the basis that the 'Bible says so'. Not every Christian even believes that, and those of us who are not Christian should not be forced to live by your beliefs. Not to mention all of those Christians who disagree with you on this particular subject.