Stay lifted on gay adoptions. This one really disturbs me.

[The Folk Prophet]

I guess the problem lies in his encouragement to not be contentious. There is simply no way to state something like "It's best for a child to be raised with a mother and a father" without it turning into a contentious discussion. Gays take offense very easily. Elder Oaks never tells us how to handle that kind of situation. He just says to be respectful. I don't know. I guess it is possible to keep trying to discuss this but at what point does the offense we cause gays surpass any good we can do by "raising our voices" against their marriages and adoptions?  

 

Being respectful is not how others perceive you. It is internal. If you are respectful but offend, that's on them.

 

Our General Authorities are a prime example. They are always respectful in the way they addresses these issues. But read what the antis say about them. They may as well be a bunch of HItlers. The most evil, hateful men that ever lived.

 

It is simple*. You speak the truth. Boldly. But you do so diplomatically, and with care in your wording. It's a skill -- one I don't have down yet, that's for sure. But when I have said something right and true and taken great care in how I say it, and I know I've taken great care, and then others come at me calling me arrogant, rude, inconsiderate, unkind, uncaring, and disrespectful, I know that they are in the wrong, not me. On the other hand, there are times (too many of them) when I have not taken great care about how I say things, and in those cases I am wrong too. But the solution is not to shut up. It is to take great care. The reality is that I see little difference in when I take great care and when I don't as to the amount of offense it causes when I stand up for truth. But I know the difference even if those offended don't.

 

* edit: this is one of those examples of me saying things badly. It's not simple at all. I wish it was. But the idea behind it is simple. Do what is right, let the consequence follow...etc.

Edited October 27, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Connie]

Oh my. Have you read this article?  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13692/

[Guest]

My thinking too. Which is the lesser of the two evils?

 

Hard to say.

 

Easy to say if you look at it in an eternal persepective.  One has the possibility of getting sealed for all time and eternity in the afterlife, the other doesn't... or so it seems.

[Guest]

I have a much bigger problem with surrogacy.  Why are people paying for someone to produce a child when there are so many kids out there that need homes already?  And I agree with those who have said that gay couples parenting is better than unstable homes or abusive or neglectful foster care.

 

Surrogacy?  As in - your genetics implanted in somebody else's body?  Easy answer.  They're embracing their inner narcissist... a natural desire much like homosexuality (or so they say).

Edited October 27, 2014 by anatess

[bytebear]

Surrogacy?  As in - your genetics implanted in somebody else's body?  Easy answer.  They're embracing their inner narcissist... a natural desire much like homosexuality (or so they say).

It's not just gay people using surrogates? I am against it in all cases, simply because there are kids right now that need good homes.

[Guest]

It's not just gay people using surrogates? I am against it in all cases, simply because there are kids right now that need good homes.

 

One of Mitt Romney's sons are using a surrogate mom, if I remember it right.

 

I don't agree with your reasoning though.  Because, if that's the case, then people should not have kids - they should all just adopt until all the homeless kids are put into good homes.

Edited October 27, 2014 by anatess

[MrShorty]

There is simply no way to state something like "It's best for a child to be raised with a mother and a father" without it turning into a contentious discussion.

How much of this difficulty is because there is no real concensus in the secular literature on the topic (and how we sometimes tend to despise secular literature when we don't agree with its results). There's the Regnerus study that claims several measures of "worse" outcomes for homosexual parenting, but many others believe this study to be flawed. There's the Australian study that shows, if anything, homosexual parenting has slightly better outcomes than heterosexual parenting. And there are many others, and everyone who doesn't like a given study's results calls it flawed.

 

In the political marketplace, do we need a better foundation to stand on before we can make these kinds of claims? Can we afford to wait until we have a better foundation? If there is little discernible difference between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents, is this a battle worth fighting? How shall we measure "successful" outcomes and "failed" outcomes?

Edited October 27, 2014 by MrShorty

[Guest]

How much of this difficulty is because there is no real concensus in the secular literature on the topic (and how we sometimes tend to despise secular literature when we don't agree with its results). There's the Regnerus study that claims several measures of "worse" outcomes for homosexual parenting, but many others believe this study to be flawed. There's the Australian study that shows, if anything, homosexual parenting has slightly better outcomes than heterosexual parenting. And there are many others, and everyone who doesn't like a given study's results calls it flawed.

 

In the political marketplace, do we need a better foundation to stand on before we can make these kinds of claims? Can we afford to wait until we have a better foundation? If there is little discernible difference between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents, is this a battle worth fighting? How shall we measure "successful" outcomes and "failed" outcomes?

 

It will take you 100 years to see the outcomes.  Children of divorced parents and single parenting took less than 100 years... but that was kinda like a, duh.

Edited October 27, 2014 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

It will take you 100 years to see the outcomes. 

 

I doubt it will take 100 years. Maybe 30.

Edited October 27, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Backroads]

 

I don't agree with your reasoning though.  Because, if that's the case, then people should not have kids - they should all just adopt until all the homeless kids are put into good homes.

I know several people who believe that.

[carlimac]

Being respectful is not how others perceive you. It is internal. If you are respectful but offend, that's on them.

 

Our General Authorities are a prime example. They are always respectful in the way they addresses these issues. But read what the antis say about them. They may as well be a bunch of HItlers. The most evil, hateful men that ever lived.

 

It is simple*. You speak the truth. Boldly. But you do so diplomatically, and with care in your wording. It's a skill -- one I don't have down yet, that's for sure. But when I have said something right and true and taken great care in how I say it, and I know I've taken great care, and then others come at me calling me arrogant, rude, inconsiderate, unkind, uncaring, and disrespectful, I know that they are in the wrong, not me. On the other hand, there are times (too many of them) when I have not taken great care about how I say things, and in those cases I am wrong too. But the solution is not to shut up. It is to take great care. The reality is that I see little difference in when I take great care and when I don't as to the amount of offense it causes when I stand up for truth. But I know the difference even if those offended don't.

 

* edit: this is one of those examples of me saying things badly. It's not simple at all. I wish it was. But the idea behind it is simple. Do what is right, let the consequence follow...etc.

You said it perfectly. Thank you!

[carlimac]

One of Mitt Romney's sons are using a surrogate mom, if I remember it right.

 

I don't agree with your reasoning though.  Because, if that's the case, then people should not have kids - they should all just adopt until all the homeless kids are put into good homes.

Just because one of Mitt Romney's sons is doing it doesn't make it right in a general way. Perhaps it's right for them considering all the circumstances ( of which I know nothing). But in general it's discouraged by the church, as is using a sperm bank. 

[Traveler]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613844/Stay-lifted-on-adoptions-by-same-sex-parents-in-Utah.html

 

I know there are many thousands of children being raised by gays. I know there isn't much we can do about it. I know lots of these kids will come out of it OK. Probably a lot more liberal and "tolerant" and perhaps a bit confused about traditional gender roles than other kids, but otherwise alright. 

 

But still.  Someone help me to see the logic of this or anything that makes this reasonable. If we are to be non-contentious and Christlike in our responses to this different lifestyle, how can we do that with a straight face? What words do we use? None at all? Do we just stay silent?

 

I'm really bugged!!

 

If we use the argument that something is okay because it is better than something else we can justify almost anything.  For example since sexually abusing children is better than feeding children to crocodiles there is nothing wrong with sexually abusing children?  Just because gay parents may teach and raise their children better than some biological parents does not mean children suddenly lose their rights to be associated with their biological parents.

 

If all things are equal - I see no reason for children to be removed from a heterosexual family.  Since children come from a heterosexual conditions - I believe those favoring changing that condition should and must be able to give reason - that  non heterosexual conditions are better both for the children and society. - not better than something we know is worse.  The preference must be and always should be for the benefit of the children and not so homosexual couples can feel or claim equality which in creating conditions for children to be - is a ridiculous fabrication and absolute nonsense.

[jerome1232]

If we use the argument that something is okay because it is better than something else we can justify almost anything.  For example since sexually abusing children is better than feeding children to crocodiles there is nothing wrong with sexually abusing children?  Just because gay parents may teach and raise their children better than some biological parents does not mean children suddenly lose their rights to be associated with their biological parents.

 

If all things are equal - I see no reason for children to be removed from a heterosexual family.  Since children come from a heterosexual conditions - I believe those favoring changing that condition should and must be able to give reason - that  non heterosexual conditions are better both for the children and society. - not better than something we know is worse.  The preference must be and always should be for the benefit of the children and not so homosexual couples can feel or claim equality which in creating conditions for children to be - is a ridiculous fabrication and absolute nonsense.

If for some bizarre reason sexually abusing the children saves them from being eaten by the crocodiles you have yourself a disturbing dilemma don't you.

[carlimac]

For every story of troubled kids with gays parents, I'm sure there are plenty of positive stories as well (There's a lesbian couple that lives in my building who are raising a sweet, well-behaved little girl). And there are plenty of straight parents messing up their kids lives. Good parenting isn't specific to one sexual orientation. There are good gay parents and bad gay parents, just like there are good and bad straight parents. The difference is that it's easier for people to look the other way when straight parents falter.

 

I don't see the problem as good parenting vs bad parenting. I see it as very deliberately denying a child a father or a mother.

 

  There will be cases, obviously where the children were born into a bio mom/dad family and then one of the parents left for a homosexual relationship and the children still have frequent contact with both bio parents. But I'm talking about two women  getting married and then one of them getting " swimmers"  from vile # 258 from some hottie with a six pack and good hair and then the resulting child never knowing their father.  And for that matter, the dad who contributed potential life has no interest in that potential child. He just wanted to make some money.  How humiliating for that child.

 

Or two men getting married and then adopting an infant. If it's a boy, then passing on to that kid by modeling, behavior that doesn't reflect healthy relationships with a woman. Also depriving him of the opportunity to have a mother-son bond. Or if it's a girl, being raised by two guys who have no attraction to women and have to take over the job of buying her first bra and tampons and... I mean that is just odd. (I know, lots of dads have this experience. But it's not optimal and it only happens if the child's mom has died or run off or is in jail or so busy running a corporation that she isn't doing her primary job as a mother.) 

 

People can deny  up one side and down the other that this kind of stuff won't affect the child becoming a normal, functioning adult eventually.  I honestly can't see how a child being raised by gays could escape the many many discrepancies and abnormalities of life with two parents of the same gender being intimate with one another.  I think there is a side of this that is being so thoroughly submerged beneath the pleasant pc blanket of " all the kid needs is love" that there will be some broken and hurting adults in the future that WILL affect the way society functions.  It's just my gut feeling.   It may also open the need for a new genre of psychotherapy that won't get addressed because the APA already declared that homosexuality isn't a mental illness.   

Edited October 28, 2014 by carlimac

[Traveler]

If for some bizarre reason sexually abusing the children saves them from being eaten by the crocodiles you have yourself a disturbing dilemma don't you.

 

in such cases we call it the lessor of 2 evils.  The operative word is evil.  But we should never accept the argument that sexually abusing children is equal to all other possibilities that saves children from being eaten by crocodiles. We should be able to make preferences based on benefits and values. 

 

For these reason I do not mind so much that some may want a same sex marriage - my objection is the argument that such a marriage should be considered equal to a marriage between a man and a women.  Not so much because they ought to have equal rights - just that we have so devalued marriage and children so much that modern society can no longer see the benefit of lasting biological families.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

I don't see the problem as good parenting vs bad parenting. I see it as very deliberately denying a child a father or a mother.

 

  There will be cases, obviously where the children were born into a bio mom/dad family and then one of the parents left for a homosexual relationship and the children still have frequent contact with both bio parents. But I'm talking about two women  getting married and then one of them getting " swimmers"  from vile # 258 from some hottie with a six pack and good hair and then the resulting child never knowing their father.  And for that matter, the dad who contributed potential life has no interest in that potential child. He just wanted to make some money.  How humiliating for that child.

 

Or two men getting married and then adopting an infant. If it's a boy, then passing on to that kid by modeling, behavior that doesn't reflect healthy relationships with a woman. Also depriving him of the opportunity to have a mother-son bond. Or if it's a girl, being raised by two guys who have no attraction to women and have to take over the job of buying her first bra and tampons and... I mean that is just odd. (I know, lots of dads have this experience. But it's not optimal and it only happens if the child's mom has died or run off or is in jail or so busy running a corporation that she isn't doing her primary job as a mother.) 

 

People can deny  up one side and down the other that this kind of stuff won't affect the child becoming a normal, functioning adult eventually.  I honestly can't see how a child being raised by gays could escape the many many discrepancies and abnormalities of life with two parents of the same gender being intimate with one another.  I think there is a side of this that is being so thoroughly submerged beneath the pleasant pc blanket of " all the kid needs is love" that there will be some broken and hurting adults in the future that WILL affect the way society functions.  It's just my gut feeling.   It may also open the need for a new genre of psychotherapy that won't get addressed because the APA already declared that homosexuality isn't a mental illness.   

The problem in this case is that it's not the gays denying they children their mother and father, or a mother and father at all.

 

For adoption there can not be a child to adopt if the child has not been given up for adoption.  This requires in most cases a straight man and woman to have a child then give up their rights as mother and father and leave the child to the system.  Now being there is no quota for gay adoptions, there are equal chances for straight couples and gay couple to adopt.  To the best of my knowledge all adoptive parents must pass a screening ( possibly not so much in private adoptions), so there is no favortisim.  So now if the rush of straight parent in Utah to adopt these kids was so great would there been enough to even have many children left now that the stay has been lifted?  I believe JAG pointed out the relativly low number of adoptions in Utah which leaves me asking do we leave these kids, who were abandonded by straight people the very mothers and fathers you are so supportive of, in the system until hopefully a straight couple comes along ( with every year making it be more unlikely), or do we try and get them out of the system faster into a home that will at least try to give a family setting vs a system run home or multiple foster homes.

 

The cries of denying children mothers and fathers when it comes to adoption rings hollow to me.  It's a great rallying cry if not for the fact that the mothers and fathers have given the child away and if the child is sitting there to be adopted then a straight couple for the most part hasn't already come and swooped them up.  Also  Gay men can show how to treat women as a wife isn't the only woman in a mans life.  Mothers, sisters, ect.  Fathers in my experience don't always provide the best examples of how to treat wives, but can be much different to other women in their lives.  And yeah it's awkward to have talks about tampons and bra's and such with girl who are growing up, but there are many ways to make it work, I almost enjoyed the bonding it gave when the topics came up with the little girl i raised, and giving advice on boys seemed to go better than what her mom said sometimes lol.

[Traveler]

The problem in this case is that it's not the gays denying they children their mother and father, or a mother and father at all.

 

For adoption there can not be a child to adopt if the child has not been given up for adoption.  This requires in most cases a straight man and woman to have a child then give up their rights as mother and father and leave the child to the system.  Now being there is no quota for gay adoptions, there are equal chances for straight couples and gay couple to adopt.  To the best of my knowledge all adoptive parents must pass a screening ( possibly not so much in private adoptions), so there is no favortisim.  So now if the rush of straight parent in Utah to adopt these kids was so great would there been enough to even have many children left now that the stay has been lifted?  I believe JAG pointed out the relativly low number of adoptions in Utah which leaves me asking do we leave these kids, who were abandonded by straight people the very mothers and fathers you are so supportive of, in the system until hopefully a straight couple comes along ( with every year making it be more unlikely), or do we try and get them out of the system faster into a home that will at least try to give a family setting vs a system run home or multiple foster homes.

 

The cries of denying children mothers and fathers when it comes to adoption rings hollow to me.  It's a great rallying cry if not for the fact that the mothers and fathers have given the child away and if the child is sitting there to be adopted then a straight couple for the most part hasn't already come and swooped them up.  Also  Gay men can show how to treat women as a wife isn't the only woman in a mans life.  Mothers, sisters, ect.  Fathers in my experience don't always provide the best examples of how to treat wives, but can be much different to other women in their lives.  And yeah it's awkward to have talks about tampons and bra's and such with girl who are growing up, but there are many ways to make it work, I almost enjoyed the bonding it gave when the topics came up with the little girl i raised, and giving advice on boys seemed to go better than what her mom said sometimes lol.

 

The issue is not so much the homosexual couples adopting. The problem is the claim that it is equal.  We all realize that there are problem biological parents.  The problem is the justification of a homosexual couple as being equal to all heterosexual couples using the argument that there are problematic heterosexual couples.   All things being equal (that government is able to consider) the children should be placed with a heterosexual couple.

[yjacket]

The problem in this case is that it's not the gays denying they children their mother and father, or a mother and father at all.

 

This requires in most cases a straight man and woman to have a child then give up their rights as mother and father and leave the child to the system. I believe JAG pointed out the relativly low number of adoptions in Utah which leaves me asking do we leave these kids, who were abandonded by straight people the very mothers and fathers you are so supportive of, in the system until hopefully a straight couple comes along ( with every year making it be more unlikely), or do we try and get them out of the system faster into a home that will at least try to give a family setting vs a system run home or multiple foster homes.

 

The cries of denying children mothers and fathers when it comes to adoption rings hollow to me.  It's a great rallying cry if not for the fact that the mothers and fathers have given the child away and if the child is sitting there to be adopted then a straight couple for the most part hasn't already come and swooped them up.  Also  Gay men can show how to treat women as a wife isn't the only woman in a mans life.  Mothers, sisters, ect.  Fathers in my experience don't always provide the best examples of how to treat wives, but can be much different to other women in their lives.  And yeah it's awkward to have talks about tampons and bra's and such with girl who are growing up, but there are many ways to make it work, I almost enjoyed the bonding it gave when the topics came up with the little girl i raised, and giving advice on boys seemed to go better than what her mom said sometimes lol.

 

This is such hogwash. 1st off the incentives and motives between straight couples and homo. couples is quite different.  Only 12% of married couples have issues conceiving, 100% of homosexual. couples cannot conceive.  Many married couples will have issues with the idea of having a child not their own blood. Homosexual couples are guaranteed that the only way they can raise a child is through some un-natural method or to adopt.

 

So it is very natural that straight couples are not lining up to adopt.  On the other hand, homosexuals will be much more likely to adopt simple because it advances the homosexual agenda of making homosexuality normal acceptable and moral.

 

The premise seems to be that it is better for children to be in a completely abnormal, unnatural, immoral "family" than to be in foster homes.  That is absolute pure rubbish.  My grandmother had foster kids for 20+ years, she has had probably over 30 foster kids in her home and I guarantee ever single one of those children is better off today than they would be if they had been in adopted into a homosexual couple.

 

And no, homosexual men in a couple cannot show children how to treat a woman.  The wife isn't the only woman in a man's life, but she darn will better be the only one that counts.  No Fathers do not always provide the best example . . . but this is such a weird thinking:  Devalue fatherhood because some aren't that great, yet extol homosexual couples (who cannot provide what a father is like)  because obviously every homo. couple is so much better than hetero couples.

 

Which is worse children in foster care or children in homosexual couples?  Children in homosexual couples every single time.

[carlimac]

The problem in this case is that it's not the gays denying they children their mother and father, or a mother and father at all.

 

For adoption there can not be a child to adopt if the child has not been given up for adoption.  This requires in most cases a straight man and woman to have a child then give up their rights as mother and father and leave the child to the system.  Now being there is no quota for gay adoptions, there are equal chances for straight couples and gay couple to adopt.  To the best of my knowledge all adoptive parents must pass a screening ( possibly not so much in private adoptions), so there is no favortisim.  So now if the rush of straight parent in Utah to adopt these kids was so great would there been enough to even have many children left now that the stay has been lifted?  I believe JAG pointed out the relativly low number of adoptions in Utah which leaves me asking do we leave these kids, who were abandonded by straight people the very mothers and fathers you are so supportive of, in the system until hopefully a straight couple comes along ( with every year making it be more unlikely), or do we try and get them out of the system faster into a home that will at least try to give a family setting vs a system run home or multiple foster homes.

 

The cries of denying children mothers and fathers when it comes to adoption rings hollow to me.  It's a great rallying cry if not for the fact that the mothers and fathers have given the child away and if the child is sitting there to be adopted then a straight couple for the most part hasn't already come and swooped them up.  Also  Gay men can show how to treat women as a wife isn't the only woman in a mans life.  Mothers, sisters, ect.  Fathers in my experience don't always provide the best examples of how to treat wives, but can be much different to other women in their lives.  And yeah it's awkward to have talks about tampons and bra's and such with girl who are growing up, but there are many ways to make it work, I almost enjoyed the bonding it gave when the topics came up with the little girl i raised, and giving advice on boys seemed to go better than what her mom said sometimes lol.

 Hi Soul. Nice to see you again!  I mean that sincerely. What have you been up to?

 

One thing I know you're up to is your same old tricks of trying to twist this thing and place blame only on straight couples. This sounds like the silly argument I've heard recently that the only reason there are gays is because straights had sex and produced a gay child.   Uh huh!  Talk about spin!

 

 If not one single straight couple ever gave their child up for adoption, gays would go to another way to get a child. Invitro, surrogates, whatever it takes. They want to have kids and they really want their "marriages" to be validated and seen as virtuous and normal. By golly no one is going to deny them that "right".  I know that they are adopting a percentage of the "unwanted kids" but unless someone shows me some documentation I can't believe that they are adopting special needs kids at any higher rate than straight couples.  

 

I'd have to guess that most of the infants up for adoption are from single women plus a man who may not even know she conceived, or he's too young to be a dad or for some other reason it makes no sense for the couple to try to raise the child together. The mistake of sex outside of marriage when a child is conceived is something that can be remedied, repented of, never done again, child placed in loving hetero home. Hopefully, lesson learned and all is well.

 

  But the "problem" we see of gay marriage and then compounded by that couple adopting children is that it's ongoing. And as this whole thing becomes more acceptable in society, the "problem" is that it's going to grow. 

 

I realize that dysfunctional hetero couples and families will always exist. There will always be a need for loving homes for kids rejected by their biological parents. That's sad. But I completely reject the notion you seem to be trying to put out there that it's only because of the dysfunction of heteros that makes these kids available and that gay couples are somehow heros for "swooping in" and saving the day.   That's a caricature of gay marriage that buries the serious issues that will result for many of these children.

[Just_A_Guy]

The problem in this case is that it's not the gays denying they children their mother and father, or a mother and father at all.

 

For adoption there can not be a child to adopt if the child has not been given up for adoption.  This requires in most cases a straight man and woman to have a child then give up their rights as mother and father and leave the child to the system.  Now being there is no quota for gay adoptions, there are equal chances for straight couples and gay couple to adopt.  To the best of my knowledge all adoptive parents must pass a screening ( possibly not so much in private adoptions), so there is no favortisim.  So now if the rush of straight parent in Utah to adopt these kids was so great would there been enough to even have many children left now that the stay has been lifted?  I believe JAG pointed out the relativly low number of adoptions in Utah which leaves me asking do we leave these kids, who were abandonded by straight people the very mothers and fathers you are so supportive of, in the system until hopefully a straight couple comes along ( with every year making it be more unlikely), or do we try and get them out of the system faster into a home that will at least try to give a family setting vs a system run home or multiple foster homes.

 

The cries of denying children mothers and fathers when it comes to adoption rings hollow to me.  It's a great rallying cry if not for the fact that the mothers and fathers have given the child away and if the child is sitting there to be adopted then a straight couple for the most part hasn't already come and swooped them up.

 

There's wisdom in what you say, SS; but in point of fact I don't think the cry is so much that children are being deprived of their mothers and fathers; but that children are being deprived of a mother and father.

 

And, I repeat my prior assertion:  On the whole, prospective adoptors want young, emotionally healthy, and (unfortunately) white children to adopt.  Unless you're willing to agree to a two-tiered system where gay couples are considered only after a certain amount of time has elapsed without a suitable straight-couple presenting itself, the net result of allowing gay adoption will be that "desirable" children continue to be adopted out--only now, many of them will be denied the influence of either a father or a mother--while number of troubled/older youth in the system will be diminished only very slightly.

 

Which is worse children in foster care or children in homosexual couples?  Children in homosexual couples every single time.

 

I agree with much of what you write, but I cannot agree with this.  I've seen some truly horrible things in the foster care system.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[applepansy]

Well, there are millions of good Mormons out there. What a better world it might be if each brought one foster child into their home and introduced them into the gospel. It's not at all easy, but it is worth it. :)

Oh... if it was only that simple.

 

My neighbor adopted a young girl (older than her two boys) out of foster care.  She had been in 17 foster homes.  There was NOT full disclosure until after they hired an attorney AFTER the adoption to get all records.  Actually say there was not full disclosure is a major understatement.  

 

The boys have now been diagnosed with PTSD, and both are still in elementary school.  For awhile they boys were sleeping with their parents and the bedroom door was locked.  Eventually they placed her in a group home at their expense.  They love her, she is sealed to them in the temple, she goes to church but she can't live WITH them.

 

These stories happen to often and scare the living daylights out of parents with younger children.  Those of us who have lived a bit longer and have seen a bit more suggested to her that adopting a child older than her own was something she needed to think about some more.  But... it didn't change anything.  They are great people and they are doing the best they can in a terribly situation.  I am sure they will assist her in having a better life than she would have otherwise but is the cost too high?  I think so.  The first responsibility is to the other children in the home, then we have a responsibility to those who don't have families.

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree with much of what you write, but I cannot agree with this.  I've seen some truly horrible things in the foster care system.

 

The point is not that there are not horrible things in the foster care system. The point is whether it's better or worse than putting them in a homosexual home. I'm not saying I would support the "wins every time" idea. But I would say that "wins almost every time" is potentially valid. Of course, that's a hard thing to say because each situation is different.

 

But as a general rule, the real damage to how children are raised is the potential damage to their souls. With foster kids that is an unknown. Sure. There's the likelihood that they will be raised in ways that will be damaging to their souls therein. But with homosexual homes, the potential that there will be damage to their souls is significantly higher, to my thinking.

 

So, yes, perhaps said too strongly, but overall, I tend to agree.

 

As a related thought: Is it better for a child to be raised in a third world, but Christian and moral society, or a first world, but corrupt and immoral society?

Edited October 29, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Suzie]

Which is worse children in foster care or children in homosexual couples?  Children in homosexual couples every single time.

 

Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind your statement?

[bytor2112]

Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind your statement?

You could start with this perhaps:

 

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.