Posted on 01/05/2012 6:36:12 AM PST by Former Fetus
Think that’s stupid... try this...
A judge rules their child’s birth certificate should list both women as legal parents.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120105/NEWS/301050046/Same-sex-parents-win-lawsuit
Make no mistake, the homos and deviants expect to have full access and ownership of other people’s kids. One step at time and ultimately we will be told Mr. Sandusky is a hero for helping young boys.
Just wow.
All I can say is that I am thankful that God doesn’t have the same opinion as you. He is the originator of the concept of adoption.
“Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God..” 1 John 3:1
ps: I hope your sons, if you have any, don’t read your spiel about the connection between a mother and her daughter. You would lay down your life for your daughter but not your son?? Sheesh.
Good catch. I don’t know why I emphasized mother and daughter, because it would apply equally well to mother and son. I’d like to include fathers in there, but I don’t have sufficient anectdotal evidence to suggest that the biological bond works the same way with fathers.
It could well be true, but it might also be that a non-biological father would be no different from a biological father. It does seem that biological fathers have a much easier time walking away from their children than biological mothers do.
I guess I should also note that since it’s all anecdotal anyway, it’s probably hard to distinguish whether the connection between mother and child is due to the biological connection, or because of the 9 months of attachment. There just aren’t enough surrogates around to make even anecdotal claims.
Beyond that error on my part, your response is about what I am used to. I feel there is a fear many have that granting a superiority to one relationship necessarily implies not just an inferiority, but a flaw in other relationships.
This generally is manifested in moves to stop grading people, or calling winning teams “winners” because of negative connotations if you don’t have the highest grade, or weren’t on the winning team. Like we can’t say one student had a perfect score, because it would make other students feel like something was wrong with them.
As I try to explain, but it never seems to take, one can support adoption, and see it as a good and healthy thing, without denigrating the superiority of the biological connection. I think we do a disservice if we try to pretend that there is nothing special about biology, just because we want adoptive parents and adopted children to feel better about themselves.
I am adopted in God’s family, but I don’t feel slighted that I am not therefore identical to the Son of God, who was not adopted but who instead is the “biological child”. I don’t feel less loved because God is perfect and will perfectly love all his children, and for the most part adoptive parents can likewise love their adopted children as if they were their biological offspring — especially when they could have no biological offspring, but even when they can.
But the biological connection is special. Just as a loving, two-parent home with both biological parents is the “best” situation for a child, even though if that isn’t possible, a step-father or step-mother is better than not, and an adoptive family is better than a foster family, and a foster home is better than a group home.
It’s much easier to get agreement on this argument if I just say that a two-parent opposite-sex married couple is better for a child than a same-sex couple. But it’s all part of the same argument.
“As I try to explain, but it never seems to take, one can support adoption, and see it as a good and healthy thing, without DENIGRATING THE SUPERIORITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION”
That’s your opinion and as it seems you have your mind made up, so I do not wish to discuss this further with you. I just feel sorry for any adopted children who may exist in or may enter into your extended family in the future. Obviously you are one of those people who feel that bio kids are superior to adopted children. I’ve heard it before. Sad.
How could a biological “kid” be superior to an adopted “kid”? They are both biological — we don’t create kids any other way.
But clearly the biological family is superior to the adopted family. In both cases, you have two loving parents and a loved child. SO in that way they are equal. But in addition to that commonality, the biological family has the biological connection, which the adopted family does not.
So unless you believe the biological connection is meaningless, or inferior, it is simple logic that a family that includes both the love of parents for the child, AND the biological connection, must be superior to both the families that have no biological connection, and more clearly with the families that have ONLY the biological connection but have no love.
Your confusion between the relationship and the individuals in the relationship is a common problem with getting people to understand or to even discuss this issue without getting rude or indignant.
As my brother has two adopted children, I guess you may feel free to feel sorry for them.
Boo hoo, I’m crying my eyes out for these rebellious women and their callous decision to use test tubes to create a child for their own pleasure. Selfish beeyotches. Neither one has my sympathy. That poor child.
Absolutely true. No one seems to be thinking of the child when they make these self-gratifying decisions to create a child where nature could not -- and should not.
If only our courts would recognize that our founders intended for us not to adulterate the laws of "nature and nature's God."
The proliferation and profiteering surrounding artificial unions and test-tube inseminations violates the intentions of our Founders set forth in the Declaration.
It is an act of mercy for adoptive parents to love a child in need, and the best case scenario for genuinely orphaned children to be adopted and cherished. But I also believe that our traditional Judeo-Christian standards of sexual morality are best for society -- that marriage and commitment to raising children are a rite of passage to adulthood and the foundation of strong communities and nations; and that traditional, heterosexual marriage is the only licit venue for sexual activity.
That's not what he is saying. He is speaking in abstractions about what is best for society overall, and what our laws about childbearing and rearing should reflect. He is not rejecting or denigrating the individual contributions of adoptive parents, nor the status of individual adoptees.
That IS the curious part, isn't it?
Speaking in abstractions is nice, but the reality is that many humans create children that they are unable/do not want to take care of. These children, adopted by parents who love and cherish them as their own, should not be considered any less than bio children.
I couldn't agree with you more. Every child is a child of God and made in His image.
However, that is an entirely separate issue from how we structure our laws to best benefit children and our society overall.
“However, that is an entirely separate issue from how we structure our laws to best benefit children and our society overall.”
Exactly, this thread was about the entirely different issue of two lesbians using IVF to selfishly obtain a child. However, CharlesWayneCT took this as an opportunity to promote his/her beliefs about adopted children and the inferior relationships they have with their parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.