Gays!!!

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

I see this claim constantly without much backup. How has the child been injured? I wish for a real claim, not something vague.

Well the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.
Can you show please how giving legal recognition for same-sex couples who are then considered by children their parents cannot possibly be injurous to the children?

 

[Psudopod]

Well the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.
Can you show please how giving legal recognition for same-sex couples who are then considered by children their parents cannot possibly be injurous to the children?

Because parent has both a biological definition and a social definition. There are plenty of people of are the parents of a child (in that they are the ones raising the child) but not the biological parents. Otherwise you are saying step-parents and adopted parents aren’t parents, which is clearly false.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

There should be secular marriage and there should be Christian marriage.
The differences between the two things should be clear.

I see no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry under secular marriage laws.
If they want to marry under Church law ... well that's a totally different matter.

It's called seperation of Church and State. I thought you Americans were rather keen on it. I think it benefits Christianity a great deal and mankind in general.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

BMS: So two teenagers who fall in love and commit to each other are married by your standards, without license or church ceremony? Is that what you are implying?

Well I didn’t write the Bible nor am I God’s Son, which is why I was referring you to passages such as Genesis 2, Matt 19 etc.

Second, BMS, I too would like concrete evidence of the grounds for your statement which B&WPC4 asks about in post #337. Pronouncing that you adjudge that harm has been done is not proof that it has been done; show evidence or logic that demonstrates that such harm has in fact been done.

The concrete evidence is that God created woman and man to be united as one flesh and it takes male and the child is a product of male and female so it has a right to male and female parents.
I would like some concrete evidence from you as to why you could possibly consider what God pronounces error, (ie. Gen 2, Lev 18 & 20, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 etc ) and of course 1 Cor 7 “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. “

 

[Belk]

There should be secular marriage and there should be Christian marriage.
The differences between the two things should be clear.

I see no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry under secular marriage laws.
If they want to marry under Church law ... well that's a totally different matter.

It's called seperation of Church and State. I thought you Americans were rather keen on it. I think it benefits Christianity a great deal and mankind in general.

A lot of American Christians disagree for some reason. Personally I think it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,
Well the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.

Can you show please how giving legal recognition for same-sex couples who are then considered by children their parents cannot possibly be injurous to the children?

I have done, can you show how a child who is the product of a man and woman can be given a same sex couple as parents? That’s denying the child’s rights to what they deserve.

Because parent has both a biological definition and a social definition.

yes but the parents, the parents will be male and female.

There are plenty of people of are the parents of a child (in that they are the ones raising the child) but not the biological parents. [/quote then they are the step parents, the step father or step mother. If you are saying a same sex couple are parents then that’s evidently false and dysfunctional. We should not subject children to accept such dysfunction, they are the product of their mother and father.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

A lot of American Christians disagree for some reason.

But why though? The benefits to Christianity of such seperation are immense.
It ensures religious freedom and means that Christians are allowed to live by the Gospel (ideally).

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,
Well the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.

In what way have they been injured though? Injured means that harm has been caused, what harm has been caused to this child?

Can you show please how giving legal recognition for same-sex couples who are then considered by children their parents cannot possibly be injurous to the children?

I have done, can you show how a child who is the product of a man and woman can be given a same sex couple as parents? That’s denying the child’s rights to what they deserve.

In what way the child’s rights being denied? Remember, research shows that the gender of the parents has no effect on the upbringing of the child. Socio-economic factors are far more important in child development.

Because parent has both a biological definition and a social definition.
yes but the parents, the parents will be male and female.

No. The parents (biological) will be male and female, but the parents (social) are not necessarily. They might be a man and a woman, 2 men, 2 women, 1 man, 1 woman etc.

There are plenty of people of are the parents of a child (in that they are the ones raising the child) but not the biological parents.

then they are the step parents, the step father or step mother. If you are saying a same sex couple are parents then that’s evidently false and dysfunctional. We should not subject children to accept such dysfunction, they are the product of their mother and father.

But they are still considered parents. Many children see their step parent as their real parent, because they are the ones that are raising them (doing the parenting). Children with adopted parents still call them mum and dad, even though they didn’t give birth to them.

It’s not false, because parent has two definitions – the people who created the child and the people who raise it. Often these are the same person, but not always. In many same sex couples the child may be the offspring of one of the couple, so at least one would be a parent even by your definition.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,
to come back on that last point, although I agree the parents have a social definition and function, same sex couples can never have a biological defintion as parents, thats the big lie and deception and why its injurous to children to have that.

It is also damaging to society that people are unable to grasp the reality of this.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,
to come back on that last point, although I agree the parents have a social definition and function, same sex couples can bnever have a biological defintion as parents, thats the big lie and deception and why its injurous to children to have that.

Well neither can infertile parents, but I doubt you have a problem with them adopting. And just because a child is raised by a same sex couple doesn’t mean they’ll be ignorant of the birds and the bees. They’ll still know that they came from a male and a female. I don’t see how this is injuring them in any way, can you be more specific?

 

[Belk]

But why though? The benefits to Christianity of such seperation are immense.
It ensures religious freedom and means that Christians are allowed to live by the Gospel (ideally).

I'm not entirely sure. I can only speculate to the thoughts behind it since I am not a Christian, but from what I am able to determine they seem to feel it is a changing of the moral fabric of society. The fact that the moral fabric already changed (and they in fact where a part of that change) seems to have slipped by them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

Well neither can infertile parents,

but that’s where the big deception comes in as I said it depends what you mean by parents, same sex aren’t. But can you show how a child who is the product of a man and woman can be given a same sex couple as parents? That’s denying the child’s rights to what they actually have as parents.

 

[Belk]

To Psudopod,

but that’s where the big deception comes in as I said it depends what you mean by parents, same sex aren’t. But can you show how a child who is the product of a man and woman can be given a same sex couple as parents? That’s denying the child’s rights to what they actually have as parents.

Children have a right to choose their parents now? Wow, when I was a kid we where stuck with whatever parents we happened to get.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Belk

Children have a right to choose their parents now? Wow,

Ugh? I agree, one cant chose ones true parents ones parents are always a mother and father, if there are substitutes they will be step fathers and step mothers.
I mean how could one have a step same sex partner as opposed to a real same sex partner. !! Its laughable.

 

[Polycarp1]

To b&wpac4,
Well the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.
Can you show please how giving legal recognition for same-sex couples who are then considered by children their parents cannot possibly be injurous to the children?

I think we may have a disconnect here, and without rancor, let me state my position:

The persons who care for, nurture, bring up a child are its parents in any valid social sense. If a boy gets a girl pregnant and disappears, she carries the child to term and gives it up for adoption because having a child would interfere with her life -- then they have surrendered all rights to be considered its parents. If a childless couple comes forward to adopt it, they become its parents, both legally and morally.

I understand your distaste for a same-sex couple acting as parents -- but in point of fact they ARE doing the work of parents, and deserve the term.

 

[Belk]

To Belk
Ugh? I agree, one cant chose ones true parents ones parents are always a mother and father, if there are substitutes they will be step fathers and step mothers.
I mean how could one have a step same sex partner as opposed to a real same sex partner. !! Its laughable.

Really! Where do kids get off these days thinking themselves lucky if they have two people who love and care for them? Selfish little brats! Whats really important is that they have two people who are of the opposite sex!

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

I think we may have a disconnect here, and without rancor, let me state my position:

The persons who care for, nurture, bring up a child are its parents in any valid social sense. If a boy gets a girl pregnant and disappears, she carries the child to term and gives it up for adoption because having a child would interfere with her life -- then they have surrendered all rights to be considered its parents. If a childless couple comes forward to adopt it, they become its parents, both legally and morally.

I understand your distaste for a same-sex couple acting as parents -- but in point of fact they ARE doing the work of parents, and deserve the term.

I think the disconnect is yours as you have only addressed the social sense, having pointed out I agree with the social sense I cant see why you haven’t addressed the crux of the matter the biological sense.
The fact is even if one doesn’t believe in the word of God, nature shows that the species has two sexes to conceive and raise the child, whilst both a man and woman and a same sex couple could raise the child clearly nature hasn’t designed it that way otherwise there would be no need for the two sexes.. … and neither my feelings not yours can change that observable fact.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Polycarp1,
I think the disconnect is yours as you have only addressed the social sense, having pointed out I agree with the social sense I cant see why you haven’t addressed the crux of the matter the biological sense.
The fact is even if one doesn’t believe in the word of God, nature shows that the species has two sexes to conceive and raise the child, whilst both a man and woman and a same sex couple could raise the child clearly nature hasn’t designed it that way otherwise there would be no need for the two sexes.. … and neither my feelings not yours can change that observable fact.

Nature shows that two sexes are needed to conceive, but not raise, a child. Once the child is born, it could be raised in any number of settings, and turn out just fine. I know people who's parents died and they were raised by grandparents or an aunt or even just a single person and they are well-adjusted adults.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,
On the contray if there are two sexes, and two sexes needed to conceive, two sexes are needed to raise, whatever you think is contrary to what exists and however much you think your view is right it is still observably contrary to what exists.

NB Neither single people, grandpsarents or aunts are same sex couples.

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,
On the contray if there are two sexes, and two sexes needed to conceive, two sexes are needed to raise, whatever you think is contrary to what exists and however much you think your view is right it is still observably contrary to what exists.

NB Neither single people, grandpsarents or aunts are same sex couples.

So, my friends who were raised by someone other than their parents do not really exist?