Please explain to me why homosexuality is anathema to God.

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

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.

I am not talking about adoptive parents I am talking about biological parents

 

[Ohioprof]

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

What evidence do you have to support this claim? In what ways is it better to be raised by biological parents than by adoptive parents?

Children are adopted for a variety of reasons. Often it's because their biological parents are unfit to be parents. In many cases it's clearly not better for children to be raised by their biological parents than by adoptive parents, which is why the children end up being adopted.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
I am not talking about adoptive parents I am talking about biological parents

You said a few posts ago that it is better for children to be raised by biological parents than by adoptive parents. You did address adoption. And then you equated same-sex parents with step-parents, and I am telling you that this equation, while sometimes accurate, is often not accurate. Many same-sex parents consist of a biological parent and an adoptive parent or two adoptive parents, not a biological parent and a step-parent. In some same-sex-headed families, there is a biological parent and a step-parent, but in many there is not a step-parent.

 

[Ohioprof]

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.

Where this is wrong is in the case of adoptive parents. There is no evidence that adoptive parents have less of a bond with their adopted children than biological parents have. Step parents may indeed have less of a bond, but not adoptive parents.

Ask adoptive parents about this. You can ask me, as I am an adoptive parent. I love my child more than anything or anyone in the world. There is no way that I would have a stronger bond with a biological child. My friends who have both adopted children and biological children say the same thing: they love their adopted children just as deeply as they love their biological children. I think this is God's way to ensure that children who lose their biological parents can be loved just as deeply by adoptive parents and get the love they need growing up.

 

[Ohioprof]

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

I agree with you about this. And I speak from experience here, as I am an adoptive parent. Hmmm, I must wake up my child now to get her ready for school.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

What evidence do you have to support this claim? In what ways is it better to be raised by biological parents than by adoptive parents?

I haven’t made that claim. I am talking about biological parents being what is required.
As I said it is best for the child’s biological mother and father to raise the child in a loving manner than an adoptive mother and father to raise the child in a loving manner.

You said a few posts ago that it is better for children to be raised by biological parents than by adoptive parents. You did address adoption. And then you equated same-sex parents with step-parents, and I am telling you that this equation, while sometimes accurate, is often not accurate. Many same-sex parents consist of a biological parent and an adoptive parent or two adoptive parents, not a biological parent and a step-parent. In some same-sex-headed families, there is a biological parent and a step-parent, but in many there is not a step-parent.

A father and a father or a mother and a mother is a biological impossibility and therefore nonsense so that combination doesn’t come into it for that reason. Why I think even animals have reared human children without physical harm, isn’t that loving?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,
You see if two people who have same-sex desires have sex then they will only produce children if they are themselves of opposite sex. This is the basic fact. The criteria for conception and producing children, is the sex of the people, not their sexual desires/attraction/orientation. It doesn’t matter what sexual orientation two people have they wont produce children if they aren’t one a man and the other a woman. So heterosexual and homosexual is factually and demonstrably meaningless, yet you base all your reasoning on it ...

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Because God didn't design a stork factory or a babies-r-us retail department store. God designed a father and a mother to produce children and rear them. God wasn't thinking of a sperm and egg bank when He created humanity.

I wasn't, either, when I made that post. I am offended by artificial insemination among lesbians; I find it a mockery of God's design. (It also makes me vaguely jealous, from both an egalitarian perspective and womb envy, since I can't bear children in the same manner, being male.)

I was referring to adoption, as I said in a later post.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

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

I sincerely doubt God would be offended if potential children were not created, instead adopting unwanted children.

It would be a heartless God otherwise.

 

[childofgod57]

what a silly thread - nature teaches you that man with man dont go,the anal passage is for the exiting of waste products,itts not a sexual organ,the male penis and the female vagina are sexual parts,one goes into the other during the act of mating - nature tells you this so God is not needed in this thread.........close the thread......lol

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Aetheriuslamia,

I sincerely doubt God would be offended if potential children were not created, instead adopting unwanted children.

I dont think thats the issue, the issue is that children are produced by a male and female therefore homosexuality is an anathema to God's creation purposes because it concerns peoples sexual attraction, firstly sexual attraction does produce children, a man and a woman in sexual intercourse does, and homosexuality, or same-sex attraction would usually lead to a man and woman not haveing sexual intercourse.

It would be a heartless God otherwise.

for you maybe but not necesarily for others. Indeed if God is God then thats what He is regardless of how you perceive Him

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Aetheriuslamia,
I dont think thats the issue, the issue is that children are produced by a male and female therefore homosexuality is an anathema to God's creation purposes because it concerns peoples sexual attraction, firstly sexual attraction does produce children, a man and a woman in sexual intercourse does, and homosexuality, or same-sex attraction would usually lead to a man and woman not haveing sexual intercourse.

for you maybe but not necesarily for others. Indeed if God is God then thats what He is regardless of how you perceive Him

This makes no sense. Just because a man and a woman having sexual intercourse can produce children, depending on their age and physical ability to have children, does not mean that people who do not or cannot do this are "anathema to God." Some people are just different from other people.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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

No. I will NOT forget the loving part... THAT is the important part!

Love is a ZILLION time more important than biology...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Jesus had an adoptive father.

Jesus was perfect.

Therefore adoptive parents are just as capable as biological ones.

 

[Catholicon]

Jesus had an adoptive father.

Jesus was perfect.

Therefore adoptive parents are just as capable as biological ones.

Case closed!

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Dear Aetheriuslamia,
I dont think thats the issue, the issue is that children are produced by a male and female therefore homosexuality is [...] anathema to God's creation purposes because it concerns peoples sexual attraction, firstly sexual attraction does produce children, a man and a woman in sexual intercourse does, and homosexuality, or same-sex attraction would usually lead to a man and woman not haveing sexual intercourse.

I don't understand what you're attempting to say. You're doing it again, with your run-on sentences that are impossible to read. Learn how to speak English. (And by the way, it's "anathema", not "an anathema".)

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that heterosexual intercourse produces children, which is not applicable as a reason to condemn homosexual love. Four pages have been wasted trying to tell you this very simple fact of logic.

If you cannot explain to me why you feel God does not condone homosexual marriages, please leave. I have heard your opinion on the Bible, and I have heard I think every argument you have as to why homosexuality is wrong: you think it's unnatural and can't produce kids. If that's everything you have to say, thank you for saying it.

I hate to be blunt, but I am appalled that a forum filled with adults spends so much time debating nonsense.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Jesus had an adoptive father.

Jesus was perfect.

Therefore adoptive parents are just as capable as biological ones.

But did Joseph raise Yeshua or did God? After all, Yeshua abandons his parents when he's like nine, to go hang out at the Temple with his Dad. ... actually, this is off-topic, and I want this thread to remain on topic.

I am very disappointed. I thought my first post was very well-written, and so far I've received only one good reply, on page 2, I think it was, which I have yet to really respond to ... I'll do so tomorrow.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Just because Jesus is perfect does not mean that His step-father was.

No. I will NOT forget the loving part... THAT is the important part!

Love is a ZILLION time more important than biology...

Loving God is a ZILLION times more important than any other type.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I hate to be blunt, but I am appalled that a forum filled with adults spends so much time debating nonsense.

Don't worry, just as many people are appalled at the posts trying to justify nonsense.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Just because Jesus is perfect does not mean that His step-father was.


Loving God is a ZILLION times more important than any other type.

And loving children is more important in one's love of God than mere biology.