Please explain to me why homosexuality is anathema to God.

Phinehas2 said:

Dear Catholicon,
As I highlighted the key and operative word, I see you have missed it. The statement made is misleading, the child of a same-sex couple isn’t theirs, it can only be one of theirs as the other has adopted it.... otherwise yes I agree.

Click to expand...

So what about step-parents then?

walloffire said:

Its anathema because it does not produce children, thereby going against his commandment to be fruitful and multiply. There are other reasons too.

Click to expand...

So infertile couples or older men & post-menopausal women should also be forbidden to declare their love for each other in front of God?

That attitude is shameful and goes against Christ's teachings of love and tolerance.

Catholicon said:

So infertile couples or older men & post-menopausal women should also be forbidden to declare their love for each other in front of God?

That attitude is shameful and goes against Christ's teachings of love and tolerance.

Click to expand...

The way you (twisted) rephrased it, yes, that does go against Christ's teachings. Don't be gay sparky.

Why? Any couple that either don't or can't produce children, goes against His commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

But then how is it harmful?

Click to expand...

Splitting marriges, ruining friendships, bringing aids to america, and social conflict. The reasons are obviouslly many more than these but you get the drift.

So far the best respose i've ever gotten is...

Harmful? Not it's not!

Click to expand...

david_x said:

Splitting marriges, ruining friendships, bringing aids to america, and social conflict. The reasons are obviouslly many more than these but you get the drift.

So far the best respose i've ever gotten is...

Click to expand...

You have also not put anything factual out there.

Dear Catholicicon,

So what about step-parents then?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

what about them? Step parents are those who have adopted.

some step parents adopt the other children, but most don't. The other (ex)spouce is often still very much involved with the children.

dayhiker

Why can't a child have a mother and a step-mother, or a father and a step-father?

This is where I think we have specific 'gay and lesbian' thinking which has lost the plot.
Of course a child can have a parent and a step parent.
The key being the step parent is not the child's biological parent and this is crucial. gay and lesbain thinking doesnt seem to recognise any real significance to the biological parent, I think this is one of the most dangerous things in our society.
the child of a same-sex couple isn’t theirs, it can only be one of theirs as the other has adopted it....loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal
gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circustances.

Phinehas2 said:

This is where I think we have specific 'gay and lesbian' thinking which has lost the plot.
Of course a child can have a parent and a step parent.
The key being the step parent is not the child's biological parent and this is crucial. gay and lesbain thinking doesnt seem to recognise any real significance to the biological parent, I think this is one of the most dangerous things in our society.
the child of a same-sex couple isn’t theirs, it can only be one of theirs as the other has adopted it....loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal
gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circustances.

Click to expand...

adopted parents, however, are different to step parents...

for all legal intents and purposes, an adoptive parent IS a parent...and the aim is clearly that an adoptive parent is also supposed to be a true parent for all emotional and supportive needs as well.

Biology and $3 gets you a cup of coffee. Being a biological parent means nothing if you don't perform in the "supportive/emotional parent" departments

Dear EnemyPartyII.

adopted parents, however, are different to step parents...

Click to expand...

yes but not concern biology, both are non-biological, the very point at the heart of this issue. Hence my point remains on that basis - loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal, gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circumstances.

Phinehas2 said:

Dear EnemyPartyII.

yes but not concern biology, both are non-biological, the very point at the heart of this issue. Hence my point remains on that basis - loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal, gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circumstances.

Click to expand...

whats biology got to do with it?

Sure, a loving biological parent is ideal, but a loving adoptive parent is JUST AS GOOD... and certainly superior to an unloving biological parent...

its the LOVING poart tyhat is important, not the biological part

Dear EnemyPartyII

whats biology got to do with it?

Click to expand...

Everything. Without a male and female, opposite sex rather than same-sex., there would be no children to parent, adopt or step parent. Hence the main reason why loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal, gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circumstances.

Sure, a loving biological parent is ideal, but a loving adoptive parent is JUST AS GOOD...

Click to expand...

certainly isnt for the reasons given.

and certainly superior to an unloving biological parent...

Click to expand...

that’s based on loving not biology, the vital factor is biology because one cant be responsible for bad man/woman parenting, whereas man/man parenting cant even produce the children to love or abuse

Dear EnemyPartyII
No 'Loving' is not the most important thing. If a man and woman have sexual relations it usually leads naturally to conception and then the child, there is no debate about it, loving on the other hand is a differernt concept for different people. Biology is the key and crucial factor that underpins any of this discussion, the very factor the gay and lesbian arguments dont want to recognise

Phinehas2 said:

Dear EnemyPartyII

Everything. Without a male and female, opposite sex rather than same-sex., there would be no children to parent, adopt or step parent. Hence the main reason why loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal, gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circumstances.

certainly isnt for the reasons given.
that’s based on loving not biology, the vital factor is biology because one cant be responsible for bad man/woman parenting, whereas man/man parenting cant even produce the children to love or abuse

Click to expand...

Sorry... WHY is a biological loving parent better than a loving, non biological parent?

In what possible way is a child better off with one, rather than the other?

PLease, be specific... no fundy dancing out of this one...

Phinehas2 said:

Dear EnemyPartyII
No 'Loving' is not the most important thing. If a man and woman have sexual relations it usually leads naturally to conception and then the child, there is no debate about it, loving on the other hand is a differernt concept for different people. Biology is the key and crucial factor that underpins any of this discussion, the very factor the gay and lesbian arguments dont want to recognise

Click to expand...

what????

so its better to be the biological child of an UNloving parent than the NONbiological child of a LOVING parent?

You have your priorities very mixed up

No forget the loving bit loving is subjective, the biological bit is fact! Your idea of love is different to mine.
It is better to be loving biological parents than loving adoptive parents.
the next issue is the parents should be man and woman as God creation and nature intended, because under no circumstances can two people of the same sex produce children between themselves

In general it'd be better for a child for a biological parent to be there as opposed to a legal guardian (non related). People who are biologically related tend to have a much quicker bond and even tighter as they are related by blood. This is generally speaking of course.

Phinehas2 said:

This is where I think we have specific 'gay and lesbian' thinking which has lost the plot.
Of course a child can have a parent and a step parent.
The key being the step parent is not the child's biological parent and this is crucial. gay and lesbain thinking doesnt seem to recognise any real significance to the biological parent, I think this is one of the most dangerous things in our society.
the child of a same-sex couple isn’t theirs, it can only be one of theirs as the other has adopted it....loving step parents are not the ideal, loving parents as in biological parents are the ideal
gay adoption and gay parents are therefore not the ideal in any circustances.

Click to expand...

You could say the same about any child who has an adoptive parent. But there is no evidence that adopted children do worse than children raised by biological parents.

Calling a same-sex parent a "step-parent" is in many cases inaccurate. In many cases, the same-sex parent who is not the biological parent is an adoptive parent, and there is a difference between an adoptive parent and a step-parent. There is some evidence that children do less well being raised by a biological parent and a step-parent than they do being raised by two biological parents. That's preliminary evidence, and there need to be more studies on this and we need to try to explain why this may be so.

There is not this kind of evidence for adoptive parents. Children raised by adoptive parents appear to do as well as children raised by biological parents. Why might that be? I suspect, andthis is conjecture, that adoptive parents are parents who have both chosen to have a family tie with a child. The non-biological parent or parents have chosen to be legal and committed parents to the child. With a step-parent, in many cases the non-biological, non-adoptive parent may have less of a connection to and less of a commitment to the child than either a biological parent or an adoptive parent would. Plus, in the case of many step-parents, the child's other biological parent may be living and have a relationship with the child. The child may be experiencing the results of divorce and feel torn between two parents who live apart and are no longer in a relationship with each other. There is evidence of the negative impact of divorce on children.

Same-sex parents may be step parents, as they may be in the circumstances I have described above. Or they may be two parents who are either biological and adoptive or both adoptive parents. That is very different from one being a step-parent who is not an adoptive parent.

I think we need to be careful not to make assertions about parenting on the basis of little evidence. One thing we do know is that children do better when they are adopted than when they grow up in state foster care systems or in orphanages or on the streets in foreign countries.