Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Violette
Children should not be concieved for the sole purpose of bringing joy to the parents. (That is not only selfish but misguided, as any parent of a teenager knows :)) Once a baby exists, its parents are there to serve, not to be served.

The evidence is unequivocal that the best environment in which to raise a child is a stable, loving heterosexual marriage, period. Now of course I would want to show nothing but support for parents who find themselves outside of that ideal arrangement through no fault of their own (like a widowed single mother). And that is not to say that some homosexual couples couldn't do a better job raising kids than some heterosexual couples.

But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy) is flat-out selfish. That many heterosexual couples have children for selfish reasons does not justify us compounding the problem by expanding the practice.

So while I don't find it practical or reasonable to explicitly prohibit such inferior parental arrangements from occurring, I see no reason why the government should legitimize through official sanction anything but the best possible choice. What the government sanctions it encourages.

322 posted on 12/02/2003 9:54:41 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies ]


To: mcg1969
"But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy)"

There are people who consciously choose to be single parents. Are they better equipped than a homosexual couple?
323 posted on 12/02/2003 9:59:23 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson