What Is Best For Children ?

Time4AChange · Apr 11, 2007

There's things that a mother can teach a child that a father can't, and vice versa....a loving mother and a loving father compliment each other when it comes to raising a child, and if it wasnt for sin...that's how it would be. There'd be no abusive parents, or single parent homes, or homosexual parents....None of those things were meant to exist in raising a child, but because of sin, it's becoming the norm. A child will always be better off with a loving mother and father than anything else.

Chie · Apr 11, 2007

JohnChapter14 said:
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."

dear me , dear me, no where did I say heterosexual couples are wolves , again go back reread what I replied to and please reread what I said to that reply. this is the second time you have took something I said and made it something I didn't say. this isn't fun at all

ReformedChapin · Apr 11, 2007

God's natural design for mother and father is best for kids fo' sho'.

BigBadWlf · Apr 13, 2007

plmarquette said:
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.

yet research shows that children of same sex parents do not suffer. They grow up to be happy productive members of society.

If you are concerned about how a few people will treat them because of who their parents arethen you might do well to confront the issues of hate and prejudice.

BigBadWlf · Apr 13, 2007

Time4AChange said:
There's things that a mother can teach a child that a father can't, and vice versa....a loving mother and a loving father compliment each other when it comes to raising a child, and if it wasnt for sin...that's how it would be. There'd be no abusive parents, or single parent homes, or homosexual parents....None of those things were meant to exist in raising a child, but because of sin, it's becoming the norm. A child will always be better off with a loving mother and father than anything else.

If only the research on the topic supported your claims.

Maynard Keenan · Apr 13, 2007

I chose the first answer because I think it is always best to be raised by your own, natural parents so long as they are capable and willing to be parents to their children. My answer wouldn't be different than if you asked "Natural parents vs. adoptive mother and father."

Dannager · Apr 13, 2007

Were I to vote, I'd pick the first one - given all other things being equal, with the first choice you will not have to, at one point in your child's life, go through the possibly mildly traumatic discussion on how you're not the biological parents of the child. That doesn't make this a good poll, though. The OP is making a rather shady attempt to have his beliefs reinforced by popular opinion.

catlover · Apr 13, 2007

PeaceLover02 said:
It is best for children to have natural parents, a mother and a father.

"Natural" parents, does that mean foster parents or adoptive parents don't fit the bill?

Time4AChange · Apr 13, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
If only the research on the topic supported your claims.

Im not sure what research you're referring to, but NO research can EVER prove that two good, caring, loving homosexual "parents" would be better for a child than two good, caring, loving heterosexual parents.

I could understand your point if i had said that heterosexual parents would always be better at raising a child, but i didnt say that...because i know there're abusive, neglective, heterosexual parents out there. That's why i said "A child will always be better off with a LOVING mother and father than anything else". And there's no research out there that can prove otherwise.

It's obvious that two loving heterosexual parents would be better for a child than two loving homosexual parents....even if you're gay you should be able to accept that fact without feeling attacked.

BAFRIEND · Apr 13, 2007

Dannager said:
Were I to vote, I'd pick the first one - given all other things being equal, with the first choice you will not have to, at one point in your child's life, go through the possibly mildly traumatic discussion on how you're not the biological parents of the child. That doesn't make this a good poll, though. The OP is making a rather shady attempt to have his beliefs reinforced by popular opinion.

Actually, there is another motive. One I will share after the poll closes.

UberLutheran · Apr 13, 2007

Chie said:
dear me , dear me, no where did I say heterosexual couples are wolves , again go back reread what I replied to and please reread what I said to that reply. this is the second time you have took something I said and made it something I didn't say. this isn't fun at all

Welcome to the wonderful world of having Christian fundamentalists take a statement we've made, twist it around to the point where it means nearly the opposite of what we said, then holding us accountable for something we never said.

I agree: it isn't fun at all. I wish they'd stop it.

catlover · Apr 13, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Im not sure what research you're referring to, but NO research can EVER prove that two good, caring, loving homosexual "parents" would be better for a child than two good, caring, loving heterosexual parents.

I could understand your point if i had said that heterosexual parents would always be better at raising a child, but i didnt say that...because i know there're abusive, neglective, heterosexual parents out there. That's why i said "A child will always be better off with a LOVING mother and father than anything else". And there's no research out there that can prove otherwise.

It's obvious that two loving heterosexual parents would be better for a child than two loving homosexual parents....even if you're gay you should be able to accept that fact without feeling attacked.

It is rare that two biological parents are raising their children together now a days, check out the divorce rate in America.

BigBadWlf · Apr 16, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Im not sure what research you're referring to, but NO research can EVER prove that two good, caring, loving homosexual "parents" would be better for a child than two good, caring, loving heterosexual parents.

I could understand your point if i had said that heterosexual parents would always be better at raising a child, but i didnt say that...because i know there're abusive, neglective, heterosexual parents out there. That's why i said "A child will always be better off with a LOVING mother and father than anything else". And there's no research out there that can prove otherwise.

your claim: "A child will always be better off with a loving mother and father than anything else." Is not supported by research Research has found is that children raised by same sex parents are no better and no worse off than children raised by opposite sex parents.

It's obvious that two loving heterosexual parents would be better for a child than two loving homosexual parents....even if you're gay you should be able to accept that fact without feeling attacked.

It is not obvious and more importantly not supported by research.

Time4AChange · Apr 16, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
your claim: "A child will always be better off with a loving mother and father than anything else." Is not supported by research Research has found is that children raised by same sex parents are no better and no worse off than children raised by opposite sex parents.

It is not obvious and more importantly not supported by research.

According to you and your "research" two men, or two women can be a better mother and father, than an actual loving mother and loving father. Go figure.....

It's amazing how you try to make us seem like the confused ones when we say homosexuality is wrong, yet you choose to argue something that's not even debateable. And you actually force yourself to believe what you're saying.

Just so you know a man doesnt bear a child for 9 months....He cant feel the same love that a woman feels for her child...A father and mother can have the same amount of love for their child, but a mother's love will always be different...There's things that she can do for a child that a father cant...just like there's things that a father can do for a child that a mother cant. There's times when a child feels more comfortable talking to his/her mother about issues, just as there's times when a child feels more comfortable talking to his/her father...How is it better if a child always has to speak to a man cuz he/she has 2 fathers? Or if the child always has to speak to a woman cuz they have two mothers? That's an unbalance for that child...all they will hear is a man's perspective or a woman's perspective. No mixture, no balance..just one thing all the time. If God didnt see a need for man and woman to compliment each other (esp when raising kids), He would have made us with the ability to reproduce without the aid of the opposite sex....He would have agreed with single parent homes...There would have been no need for Eve if Adam and his male perspective and opinions was sufficient enough to have a balanced world.

I would keep going on, but i refuse to state such obvious facts....if you dont want to accept the truth, no matter what i say you'll still believe what you want. So just have a good day.

catlover · Apr 16, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Just so you know a man doesnt bear a child for 9 months....He cant feel the same love that a woman feels for her child....

Can you explain that if a child is better with the natural mother and father why Andrea Yates drowned the children she carried in her body for nine months?

Can you explain why natural mothers have their children taken away from them and put into the foster care system?

There is supposidly all this morality and love with heterosexual parents but there are many examples of the opposite.

Dannager · Apr 16, 2007

Time4AChange said:
According to you and your "research" two men, or two women can be a better mother and father, than an actual loving mother and loving father. Go figure.....

Well, yeah. There is the potential for a really bad set of natural parents and a really good set of same-sex parents. What sort of problem do you have with this?

It's amazing how you try to make us seem like the confused ones when we say homosexuality is wrong, yet you choose to argue something that's not even debateable.

It's supported by study. If it's not debatable that's because it's correct.

And you actually force yourself to believe what you're saying.

I don't think there's any sort of belief required. The fact that it's possible for bad natural parents to exist and good same-sex parents to exist should be evidence enough that this could happen.

Just so you know a man doesnt bear a child for 9 months....He cant feel the same love that a woman feels for her child...

Ignoring the fact that this is wrong for a moment, are you saying that parents who are forced to use surrogate mothers (because of the woman's sterility) won't be able to feel the same love for their child? Is that really what you're saying?

A father and mother can have the same amount of love for their child, but a mother's love will always be different...There's things that she can do for a child that a father cant...just like there's things that a father can do for a child that a mother cant.

I'm pretty certain that this is not the case.

There's times when a child feels more comfortable talking to his/her mother about issues, just as there's times when a child feels more comfortable talking to his/her father...

I think you'll find that, where same-sex parents are concerned, the child will identify with one of them in one way, and with the other in another way.

How is it better if a child always has to speak to a man cuz he/she has 2 fathers? Or if the child always has to speak to a woman cuz they have two mothers? That's an unbalance for that child...all they will hear is a man's perspective or a woman's perspective.

Your preconceived, religiously-fueled notions are not supported by study. You're guessing here, and guessing wrong.

No mixture, no balance..just one thing all the time. If God didnt see a need for man and woman to compliment each other (esp when raising kids), He would have made us with the ability to reproduce without the aid of the opposite sex....

We can already do that.

He would have agreed with single parent homes...There would have been no need for Eve if Adam and his male perspective and opinions was sufficient enough to have a balanced world.

What do these religious arguments have to do with refuting the study shown earlier? Or have you suddenly switched from trying to rationalize your viewpoint to defending it with religious belief?

I would keep going on, but i refuse to state such obvious facts....if you dont want to accept the truth, no matter what i say you'll still believe what you want. So just have a good day.

None of these facts are obvious, and most of them are not facts. The facts are what was discovered in the study referenced earlier.

Time4AChange · Apr 16, 2007

catlover said:
Can you explain that if a child is better with the natural mother and father why Andrea Yates drowned the children she carried in her body for nine months?

Can you explain why natural mothers have their children taken away from them and put into the foster care system?

There is supposidly all this morality and love with heterosexual parents but there are many examples of the opposite.

Im sorry but your post has nothing to do with anything i said, or anything i've been saying. I made it clear that i know not all natural parents would be best for raising a child...that's why i keep stressing the word LOVING. A LOVING mother and a LOVING father would be the best thing. Heterosexual parents that love God and love their child would be what's best for a child. That's my point.

Besides, think about it...God made us in such a way that a man and a woman need to come together to MAKE a child...why would you think that God wouldnt want that man and woman to come together and RAISE that child. Why do you think that Jesus said that divorce should be avoided unless it's extreme circumstances like adultery and stuff like that? Because God knows the importance of a man and woman complimenting each other.

So if you dont think that a man and woman is best for a child, then discuss that with God...Cuz He's the One that made us that way, that was His will..So you can debate that with Him.

Time4AChange · Apr 16, 2007

Dannager said:
Well, yeah. There is the potential for a really bad set of natural parents and a really good set of same-sex parents. What sort of problem do you have with this?

It's supported by study. If it's not debatable that's because it's correct.

I don't think there's any sort of belief required. The fact that it's possible for bad natural parents to exist and good same-sex parents to exist should be evidence enough that this could happen.

Ignoring the fact that this is wrong for a moment, are you saying that parents who are forced to use surrogate mothers (because of the woman's sterility) won't be able to feel the same love for their child? Is that really what you're saying?

I'm pretty certain that this is not the case.

I think you'll find that, where same-sex parents are concerned, the child will identify with one of them in one way, and with the other in another way.

Your preconceived, religiously-fueled notions are not supported by study. You're guessing here, and guessing wrong.

We can already do that.

What do these religious arguments have to do with refuting the study shown earlier? Or have you suddenly switched from trying to rationalize your viewpoint to defending it with religious belief?

None of these facts are obvious, and most of them are not facts. The facts are what was discovered in the study referenced earlier.

It's really easy to disagree with everything someone says...However, to disagree without sounding like all you're trying to do is disagree..is a little more difficult.

Thanks for responding to my post though.

catlover · Apr 16, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Im sorry but your post has nothing to do with anything i said, or anything i've been saying. I made it clear that i know not all natural parents would be best for raising a child...that's why i keep stressing the word LOVING. A LOVING mother and a LOVING father would be the best thing. Heterosexual parents that love God and love their child would be what's best for a child. That's my point.

.

Sure it does, you claim a heterosexual couple is superior to a homosexual couple for raising children.

Clearly, heterosexuals have issues which show they are not superior for raising children as opposed to a homosexual couple.

BTW Rusty and Andrea Yates are Christians. The very moral Christian Rusty Yates divorced his obviously mentally ill wife and married again.

Finally, I noticed people ignored my post about it being very rare now-a-days that two parent bio parents raising their children today. The divorce rate in America is one out of every two marriages will fail.

sunlover1 · Apr 16, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
yet research shows that children of same sex parents do not suffer. They grow up to be happy productive members of society.

If you are concerned about how a few people will treat them because of who their parents arethen you might do well to confront the issues of hate and prejudice.

Some children will suffer at the hands
of their parents no matter their
sexual orientation, and some will not.

To say no children of same sex parents
suffer is sort of silly imo.

If you're referring to some study,
then what sort of criteria is it using.

thank you,
sunlover...

I didn't vote because I cant choose.
Loving parents is what I would have
chosen, but that's not on the list.

What Is Best For Children ?

WHAT IS BEST FOR CHILDREN...

BEING RAISED BY NATURAL PARENTS: MOTHER AND FATHER ?

BEING RAISED BY A SAME SEX HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE ?

Regular Member

A wise King finds happiness in acts of mercy

Chapin = Guatemalan

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Well-Known Member

Back in Town

catlover

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

catlover

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Regular Member

catlover

Guest

Back in Town

Regular Member

Regular Member

catlover

Guest

Beloved, Let us love one another

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency