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

[yjacket]

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. 

Yeap, exactly.

[yjacket]

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.

 

I never said that horrible things don't happen within the foster care system, however if the choice is between a heterosexual couple in foster home vs. homosexual adoption.  Heterosexual couple wins.

 

Look, homosexual relationships is a perversion of the most basic commandment of God, to be fruitful and multiply.  While horrible things do happen in foster homes, and in normal homes etc. However, placing an innocent child in a situation where the most basic instinct and indeed the only method through which the human race can continue has been perverted into something entirely else is a very, very grave evil.  On average, it is my belief that those children are going to have serious identity and psychological issues later in life, not to mention morality issues.  At this point we do not have enough data to understand the damages that will occur to children raised in these situations.  We do have data on stability of relationships and that data shows overwhelmingly that homosexual couples are less stable than heterosexual couples.  So if it is for the "stability" of the children, studies blow the stability issue away.

 

Studies show that children thrive in homes that have a mother and a father and where one parent (generally the mother) is at home during the child's early years.  Children take their cues about life and how to be responsible from their parents.  Until the child is in their teenage years (and even then to a large extent), parents are idolized, they are heroes who can generally do no wrong.

 

I tell you, the world is very sick.  I'm not that old and yet I feel like I'm in bizarro world where one has to explain why a child being raised in a homosexual environment is a bad thing.  20 years ago, this isn't even a discussion, it's a yeah well no duh.  Shoot it was only 10 years ago that Texas's anti-sodomy law was struck down.  How far culture has fallen, and to be honest a huge part of it has to do with the TV shows and movies people watch.  First it's books about how "Sally has 2 daddies" then it's Will and Grace then whatever else.  Homosexuality is not that prevalent 1.5-2%, yet the world has it being a huge.  I actually think the numbers will increase because socially it is more accepted therefore more people who are on the fence will experiment with it.  

 

Now let me be clear, I do make a clear distinction between morality and government force.  This is yet another reason why the government should not be involved in marriages or in adoptions.  The government should not have the ability to determine who enters into a social contract with who, nor should they be in the business of handing out government cheese to foster homes nor for adoptions.  Many years ago, churches and charities did these things, but now it is taken over by government. If it was all run through churches or privately, homosexuals could go pound sand on these issues, either that or find a church/charity willing to give up a child to them (good luck with that, most churches still have a good bit of morality left!).  With the government involved it gets real messy b/c now with homo marriage, the government has no right to determine who gets to adopt and who doesn't.

 

I also believe that homosexual couples should be able to live their life in peace and if they find someone to give them a child to raise so be it. The sins be upon the heads of those who gave the child to them. But there is a huge difference between saying they can do it and saying it is "okay" or "alright".  People do lots of stupid things in life and people commit lots of evil sins.  As long as they do not infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property then fine.  But just because they stay within those bounds does not mean what they are doing is okay.

 

In sum I defend someone's right to be wrong, but I will not go along and say their wrong is right.

Edited October 30, 2014 by yjacket

[carlimac]

  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.

 

Gay men can certainly show how to treat women, but they can never show how to treat a wife. There is a difference. Modeling daily acts of respect and loving interaction between husband and wife is essential.  Kids need to see this everyday of their lives growing up. It's so crucial for young boys to witness their dads treating their moms well in order to gain the security and sense of well being to mature properly and to be able to fall back on those behaviors naturally themselves once they have wives.   And the need for a girl to have a loving daddy is crucial, also for girls to gain self esteem. 

 

I know you were a very caring friend and "nanny" to those kids you helped raise. But the diff is that you weren't married to a same gender partner at the time. You weren't the parent. Logically, any adult can teach a kid what they need to know about life. But it will have greater impact if it's a parent, especially if the parent is walking the walk.

[carlimac]

http://www.redbookmag.com/kids-family/blogs/mom-blog/things-all-dads-of-daughters-should-know

 

Girls really do benefit from having a dad.  One dad is great. More than one in the household would be overkill, says moi.

[Soulsearcher]

Gay men can certainly show how to treat women, but they can never show how to treat a wife. There is a difference. Modeling daily acts of respect and loving interaction between husband and wife is essential.  Kids need to see this everyday of their lives growing up. It's so crucial for young boys to witness their dads treating their moms well in order to gain the security and sense of well being to mature properly and to be able to fall back on those behaviors naturally themselves once they have wives.   And the need for a girl to have a loving daddy is crucial, also for girls to gain self esteem. 

 

I know you were a very caring friend and "nanny" to those kids you helped raise. But the diff is that you weren't married to a same gender partner at the time. You weren't the parent. Logically, any adult can teach a kid what they need to know about life. But it will have greater impact if it's a parent, especially if the parent is walking the walk.

It's actually kinda funny you bring up the kids i helped raise.  Both of the boys older boys are married now.  The one who spent time with his dad after the divorce is having issues with his marriage now, but more because of him being to eager to marry so he could find stability, and the younger one got married in the temple about a year ago.  Both boy have commented that they learned how to treat women from me vs their father growing up.  LOL to be honest they've both said they learned a lot more about being a good person in general from me vs their father.

 

One thing i want to make sure people understand is i'm not bashing or belitteling the need for mothers and fathers or the roles they play, but this topic in specific is dealing with adoption.  This means kids who do not have a mother and father at this time because those people gave up those rights.  These are not kids that gays are stealing away, these are kids that need someone to take them in.  I'm not sure i agree with the two tier idea that JAG suggested but i understand it.  I remember reading articles a few years ago, and i can't find them now that i need them, that commented that gays weren't just seeking the usual kids that everyone wanted to adopt, but were seeking any kids to raise.  They were taking a higher percentage of the kids no one wanted.  Non-white, older, "special" children.  I wonder if we put JAG's tier idea into action if we might see a huge difference in who got these children or if we might see that straight couples really aren't losing out to gay couples and these kids don't have the line up of mothers and father wanting to take them into their homes.

 

People seem to think that supporters of gay adoption are on an all out war against the traditional family.  While i understand the stance and understand the lamenting for what already is lost, i worry that some of the resitance is ill placed.  Gays did not cause the issues that already exist with traditional families.  The argument isn't that straight couples, and yes this also includes many strong religious families, have already caused incredible damage to the traditional family, it's that the damage is done and while people may hope to god it can be fixed the reality is that even a large portion of the people pressing for this are only paying it lip service.  It feels like people are using the gays as a scapegoat to avoid working on the real problems in the world.  I understand how gays are seen in the community, but really as people keep pointing out we are such a small percentage in the population, less than 1% some people here have claimed, that we cannot be the root or the focus for fixing families.  If a fraction of the energy that is used to push back against gays, a fraction of the money and political influence was used to address greater potential and real threats to the family could it make a more substantial difference?  Sometimes it feels like it's easier to direct so much at the gays because people have come to a real loss on how to fix the bigger issues and this is something they can all get behind to forget that all the background root issues were here long before most of the gay rights push.

 

I'm not saying take gays off the radar, but if you are worried about gays adopting, why not put the stronger focus on finding out where the kids are comign from and stem the tide of kids who's mothers and fathers are putting them in the system.  If gays are a real danger to marriage, maybe the focus should be on making straight marriage so strong and true that gay marriage can't hold a candle to it vs the general "joke" that it's become to many people.  I tend to find more people talking at than talking to and so few really listening that i can understand why things are getting worse everywhere.

 

On a side note I'm doing well Carlimac, i just bought my first condo and am in the proccess of moving in and setting up.  Works keeping me busy heading into the holiday season and with running both the toy and electronics dept, plus spending most of my shifts as manager on duty i'm running quite a bit.  Otherwise a dull boring life lol no time to do anything but work and set up my home, hopefully life will slow down a bit and i can have a bit of a life.

[The Folk Prophet]

People seem to think that supporters of gay adoption are on an all out war against the traditional family.  

 

No. Satan is on an all out war against the traditional family. I'd say most of the world are nothing but blind supporters of what's trendy, comfortable, and emotionally moving. In other words -- stooges of Satan without it being intentional.

[Traveler]

Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind your statement?

 

I think I can explain this with example.  When I joined the army I was 17 years old weighed 115 lbs and looked 13.  For some reason that I cannot explain (but I can speculate) homosexuals like to associate with undersized young military guys without a lot of experience in life.  I met lots and lots of homosexuals that made efforts to be my friend.  One concept that was overwhelmingly present with those homosexual befriending me – was the idea that I should not judge homosexuality or if I was homosexual until I actually tried it.  The idea was never – if you were born some way no one should ever try to change it – the idea was always – try it first to see if you like it.

 

I have had many honest discussions with homosexual friends and discussed this paradox of you must try it to know if you like it.  No one has ever said that such thought carries no possible sense.  I am not saying there can be no exceptions – just that I and no one I have ever known has encountered the exception.

 

So this is my big problem with homosexual raising children.  That they believe all children should try homosexuality before they decide they can figure out if their homosexuals.  This is very different than the idea that we are born with attractions that cannot be changed. 

 

I believe that we all take upon ourselves the sexual behaviors (including attractions to) of the society we are acclimated to.  

[HomogenousHomo]

I believe in the power of family, but I also believe that there are deeper roots to this problem, as others have mentioned. I have met children of homosexual couples that turned out just fine, and heterosexual for that matter. 

 

I also know the difference of how important it is to have a father and mother figure. I grew up in a house where my father wasn't around that much, and my grandfather took over a lot before he died, and taught me all I needed to know about being a man in this world. Boys need their fathers to teach them how to be men, just as much as they need a mother to teach them how to respect women, or vice versa.

 

This the ultimate root of the problem, but if there are so many orphans, and/or foster children that need homes, I don't think it would be an issue if a gay couple adopted if they provided a loving environment. It wouldn't be ideal, on the "role" side of things, but it would be more stable than having no one at all. 

 

How many of our family situations have truly been "ideal," and 1950s Nuclear? If you say yes, you are either a very lucky lad or lass, or lying to yourself. 

 

My mother has not been the best mother. My dad is a selfish man as well, but they did the best they could for the time. They loved me in their own way. I resent them from time to time, but it truly was never perfection. I still try to love my parents, because you don't choose who they are, and you only get one family. You can try to find a replacement, but there really is no place like home. The thing is, you just need someone to raise you, period. It won't be ideal, but we all need someone to be there and teach us what they have learned through life to help us get through it. 

 

The families that say they have no problems are the ones that have bigger rugs to push them under. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by HomogenousHomo

[Traveler]

I believe in the power of family, but I also believe that there are deeper roots to this problem, as others have mentioned. I have met children of homosexual couples that turned out just fine, and heterosexual for that matter. 

 

I also know the difference of how important it is to have a father and mother figure. I grew up in a house where my father wasn't around that much, and my grandfather took over a lot before he died, and taught me all I needed to know about being a man in this world. Boys need their fathers to teach them how to be men, just as much as they need a mother to teach them how to respect women, or vice versa.

 

This the ultimate root of the problem, but if there are so many orphans, and/or foster children that need homes, I don't think it would be an issue if a gay couple adopted if they provided a loving environment. It wouldn't be ideal, on the "role" side of things, but it would be more stable than having no one at all. 

 

How many of our family situations have truly been "ideal," and 1950s Nuclear? If you say yes, you are either a very lucky lad or lass, or lying to yourself. 

 

My mother has not been the best mother. My dad is a selfish man as well, but they did the best they could for the time. They loved me in their own way. I resent them from time to time, but it truly was never perfection. I still try to love my parents, because you don't choose who they are, and you only get one family. You can try to find a replacement, but there really is no place like home. The thing is, you just need someone to raise you, period. It won't be ideal, but we all need someone to be there and teach us what they have learned through life to help us get through it. 

 

The families that say they have no problems are the ones that have bigger rugs to push them under. 

 

Sorry - but I see your post causing more problems than what we should be accepting in our society.  To try to illustrate I will try to use principles that I was taught by my father.  When I was young (in high school) I was looking for ways to make money.  I had reviewed with my father a concept of washing window in the business district of our town.  My father sat down with me and together we went over my plan.  In essence he told me my plan was not good enough - something I heard from my father most of my life.  He arraigned for me to live away from home for a couple of weeks and work for a professional window washer  in a distant town.  This professional window washer was an immigrant friend of my father that was arguably the world's best window washer - by far and away the best window washer I have ever encountered.    He taught me how to wash windows and a great many other things.  And he did not do it so kindly that I thought it fun at the time.  He worked me every second he could - I felt like salve labor.

 

Later reviewing this experience with my father - he made it clear that whenever I go about learning anything - I should seek out the best teachers possible and not ever settle for just what ever I can get - especially what is fun or enjoyable at the time.  What I dislike so much about this post and so many other things and ways to deal with the lessons of life it that it touts the doctrine of settling for deficient circumstance.  I can understand that there are conditions when one must settle for deficient circumstance in life but what I object to is the doctrine that settling is acceptable anytime one can find an excuse - any excuse.

 

The problem of raising children responsibly is not a homosexual couples verses heterosexual couples.   The problem of raising children is a parenting problem and homosexual couples have made a decision in life not to parent but to seek other avenues in their purpose in being a couple.  I do not intend so much to discuss why homosexual couples have decided to choose not to parent or even if they can or cannot control how or why they made such decision - only to be clear that of necessity of being homosexual they have clearly decided to pursue a course in life that unquestionably prevents them from participating in a relationship from which children are borne. 

 

I honestly believe that those that insist on bringing homosexual coupling into the condition of raising children as a needed condition - I honestly believe are doing such children a grave disservice of settling for far less than what children deserve, should be raised and educated.  I am not saying homosexual couples cannot positively contribute to raising children - I as saying that by demanding that homosexual coupling becoming a condition of raising children that a grave disservice is done both to children and society.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Traveler

[Guest]

And here I'm still fighting the good fight of keeping divorce illegal in my country... for the children.

 

Carry on...

Edited November 24, 2014 by anatess

[Traveler]

And here I'm still fighting the good fight of keeping divorce illegal in my country... for the children.

 

Carry on...

 

 

 

?????  I do not understand your point?????  Can you explain????

[Guest]

?????  I do not understand your point?????  Can you explain????

 

The point is... the Philippines have been getting a lot of pressure from lobbyists who are trying to legalize divorce.  We are trying to fight this lobby to keep divorce illegal - for the welfare of the children.  "The welfare of the children" is still a loud voice in the arena of popular discussions... and the culture can look generations ahead when it comes to children... so divorce remains illegal.

 

While here in America, the welfare of the children is generally secondary to the divorcing couple's... or any other big ticket discussions from healthcare to the national debt.  So, it gets harder and harder to discuss what's best for the children when culturally, America is not used to having to think of the welfare of the children when it comes to social change.