What Is Best For Children ?

[BAFRIEND]

Well....

 

[Dannager]

Poll fails for not having any reasonable options.

 

[lmnop9876]

by natural parents, I assume you mean the biological mother and father of the child?

the poll doesn't provide the option of a child who is raised by a single mother, a child raised by adopted parent(s), a child who has no parents, &c. &c. out of the two options provided, I would say that the best thing for every child is definitely to be raised by his/her biological mother & father, but if the second option was "adopted parents" i would still answer in the same way.

 

[Pogue]

It's absolutely impossible to say just on the basis of the information given in the OP. If I knew something more about the hypothetical couples, I could say. But it's impossible to say either way, as a general statement.

 

[TamiinKS]

Well, all things being equal, I'd choose a child's natural parents.

But in my line of work, I would have to say that I've know many children who would have been far better off being raised by two loving people of the same sex than the parents who bore them.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It is best for children to be raised by loving, capable parents...the sexual orientation of said parents doesn’t matter at all

 

[BAFRIEND]

Poll fails for not having any reasonable options.

What ?

It is a simple question, people.

These are two reasonable options. What other options do you suggest ? Wolves ?

 

[BAFRIEND]

This poll is about family values and has nothing to do with debating gay lifestyles.

My views on homosexuality are relatively neutral.

 

[BigBadWlf]

This poll is about family values and has nothing to do with debating gay lifestyles.

Same sex couples and their children ARE families.

My views on homosexuality are relatively neutral.

thanks for the laugh

 

[Pogue]

My views on homosexuality are relatively neutral.

Hang on. I don't mean to question your personal beliefs here, but on this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5138306-homosexuality.html
You said that homosexuality was sin (repeated many, many times) and 'sick'. That doesn't seem that neutral to me.

 

[Brieuse]

Poll fails for not having any reasonable options.

Definitely.

If I were an adoption agency I would like have to a look at much more criteria.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Hang on. I don't mean to question your personal beliefs here, but on this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5138306-homosexuality.html
You said that homosexuality was sin (repeated many, many times) and 'sick'. That doesn't seem that neutral to me.

The key word there is, relatively.

 

[*Starlight*]

It all depends on what kind of people they are...

 

[*Starlight*]

The key word there is, relatively.

Hmm... So I guess I could say that Google is a relatively obscure and unpopular website.

 

[Chie]

What ?

It is a simple question, people.

These are two reasonable options. What other options do you suggest ? Wolves ?

What is the real question here? Everyone that has a half a brain knows if the natural parents are providing love,protection, and a good environment the child is better off with them for emotional reasons.
Why are you asking without given a back ground to why the question is being asked?
Now if the child had only two choices , their natural parents or a homosexual couple , and the parents was exposing the child to harm and abuse, then I would have to vote for the homosexual couple , assuming they would love and give the child what it needed, if not then the wolves might do a better job.

 

[RMDY]

What is the real question here? Everyone that has a half a brain knows if the natural parents are providing love,protection, and a good environment the child is better off with them for emotional reasons.
Why are you asking without given a back ground to why the question is being asked?
Now if the child had only two choices , their natural parents or a homosexual couple , and the parents was exposing the child to harm and abuse, then I would have to vote for the homosexual couple , assuming they would love and give the child what it needed, if not then the wolves might do a better job.

Now if a child had only two choices, their natural parents giving them love and kindness and a homosexual couple, the child would pick his natural parents.

Thank you for calling prejudging hetrosexual couples as
"wolves."

 

[*Starlight*]

Now if a child had only two choices, their natural parents giving them love and kindness and a homosexual couple, the child would pick his natural parents.

But it would be the same with a heterosexual couple, so why mention their sexual orientation?

 

[BAFRIEND]

Hmm... So I guess I could say that Google is a relatively obscure and unpopular website.

The term "relative" is the ultimate enabler. It literally takes all meaning out of a statement. So, you are correct !

A prize is coming your way .

 

[Ave Maria]

It is best for children to have natural parents, a mother and a father.

 

[plmarquette]

It is best for children to be raised by loving, capable parents...the sexual orientation of said parents doesn’t matter at all

excepting that the children will face a number of problems , that heterosexuals would not ...

will wrestle with why they are different and others talk about them and avoid them ...

but there is no guarantee that heterosexual parents are perfect ... drugs, alcohol , abuse , etc.