I have read much of Blankenhorn’s research. It is no different than when they tried to jung up child psychology in the belief that all children are without self and subject to nature and nurture more than reason. And while he does point out that marriage is necessary, he only does so biologically. Meaning he doesn’t really understand the spiritual need of it. On top of that, I never said this was acceptable, and I never said the traditional family is not better. Not to mention it has little to do with the original point of what my post was about. You cherry picked that statement and didn’t include it as a whole with the rest. I never defended homosexuality and several times pointed that out. I instead believe we have more important things to worry about that have an immediate effect on our society than whether this particular family is homosexual. If you wish to turn this into a argument of whether I’m defending homosexuality then you’ll lose.
Now If you wish to discuss the science of this then we can do that too.
It is accepted science now that homosexuality is a genetic misfire. Misfire being my word here. There is a gene that lends to that. Meaning that genetically we’re meant to be heterosexual for a reason. Once in a while a gene misfires and the individual will become homosexual. Instead of spouting platitudes about how wrong or morally reprehensible homosexual behavior is then why aren’t you investing time an energy into finding a genetic cure? Wouldn’t that solve everything much better than condemnations? Provided science is correct on this...
Yet still this too has no bearing on what I posted above. Obama and his Soros puppet master are greater threats to our society than this homosexual family. AT THIS TIME.
And what in the world does the “Western Civilization” comment have to do with the whole thing? Eastern Civilization is full of Islamofacists and communists. So I’m not even sure where you’re going with this. Your traditional view of “Family” is founded in Western Civilization alone. You’ll need to clarify this statement for me so I can understand your point.
I don’t recall mentioning any photos. Must be your understanding of what I posted. I don’t care if they have Xmas cards with their pictures on it or a family album. Doesn’t change my perception or views a whit. What I care about is whether that child is loved. And loved as in feels safe, secure, cherished, and informed. While you see this as an attempt at undermining society (and I agree), you refuse to see that it is small time compared to what’s being allowed to transpire right this moment that will have a much more profound effect on your family than all your traditions can offset. My post was one of priorities.
My own family is raised on christian values, love, respect, and the right of an individual to think freely. Even if I end up not agreeing with them. And I must be doing something right as my children are straight A students, never in trouble with society, and considered some of the most polite kids amongst those that have met them. My oldest wants to pursue Constitutional Law, My son wants to be a Marine Corps Officer an my youngest an RN, so perhaps my understanding of “Family” is pretty solid.
BTW... I hope my posts aren’t coming across as angry, upset or indignant. They are only meant to be a discussion and I don’t feel like you or the others are attacking me or anything. And I don’t want you to feel that way either.
Since when? The left has desperately tried, and failed, to push the idea that they're "born that way."
It's never been proven.
However, an irrefutable fact is that the vast majority of homosexuals are sexual abuse victims.
It's a mental disorder. Deal with it.
Prayers for her for when the lesbian three-way turns into a royal cat-fight and little Heather is used as the means of revenge between them. It won't be pretty.
It's irrelevant. They still needed to borrow the turkey baster to get anywhere.
Cheers!
I oppose homosexuality for many reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with you to the extent that I wouldn’t try to take the child away from her three mothers, nor would I treat them poorly simply because I disagree with them.
I know a lesbian couple fairly well, and although I disapprove, there’s no reason to be cruel to them. I also know many heterosexual couples who are unrepentant sinners, aka non-Christian. Why should I pick out the lesbian couple for special condemnation? I don’t think I should.
I’m opposed to homosexual “marriage” and do not think the government should give it preferential status. There’s a very good reason why real, traditional marriage is recognized and supported by the state. Real marriage is a fundamental building block of a free society.
My beef against homosexuals is when they try to silence me for my religious and natural law beliefs or when they try to destroy the institution of marriage by expanding the definition to cover virtually any arbitrary relationship.
That’s where the gay rights movement is heading. They ultimately want to silence and condemn me (and others) for not believing the lie that what they do is perfectly normal. This isn’t about live and let live, not when they want to indoctrinate my children and silence all opposition to their sexual choices.
Your original assertion was that you didn't care if a child had "2, 3, or 8 same-sex parents" as long as he/she was "happy." This sounds for all the world like a defense of the lifestyle (as long as the child was "happy," of course).
And who decides whether the child is happy? You are doubtlessly familiar with the pro-gay studies that rely upon self-reporting, i.e., as in asking the same-sex parents: "Tell us what a great job you are doing as parents..."
In the absence of any objective evaluation, such studies, to no one's surprise, conclude that the children of gay parents are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted.
I formerly worked as the Senior Fellow for Policy at a national pro-family organization. In that capacity I conducted research and wrote papers on the subject of homosexual parenting. I believe that there is abundant evidence of the harm done to children raised by same-sex parents.
Same-sex households are notoriously unstable. Homosexual couples that stay together and maintain a monogamous relationship over the long term are as rare as hen's teeth in the gay community. Gay couples who consider themselves to be in "long-term committed, monogamous relationships" have an abysmal track record. One study found that none - as in zero - of the so-called "committed, monogamous" couples were exclusive in their sexual relationships longer than five years, and most lasted much less than that.
There unfortunately exists a great deal of obfuscation regarding the meaning of "monogamous." Many homosexual couples redefine "monogamy" in a way that bears little resemblance to the usual meaning of the word. Thus, they proclaim that they are in a "monogamous" relationship while actually having sex with other people.
Thus we have the tragic situation of children being raised in households with revolving bedroom doors, where they may endure a succession of same-sex partners to their biological mother or father. Even the story that triggered this discussion involved a little girl with three "moms" - including one ex-lover who for some odd reason is still in the picture. In five or ten years, who will this confused little girl be relating to as "mom"? Can anyone claim that this is an optimal - or even an acceptable - setting for the raising of children?
You assert that "we have more important things to worry about that have an immediate effect on our society" than homosexual parenting. Nothing could be further from the truth; there is nothing more critical than protecting the very foundation of our society - any society, which is marriage and the family. Worries about the economy, while very real, take a back seat to this bedrock issue.
We must not allow ourselves to be distracted with the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic while the hull is being rent. One last note: your assertion that "It is accepted science now that homosexuality is a genetic misfire" is not correct, and would in fact be strongly contested by those on either side of the issue. Gay activists, e.g., would find the belief that their same-sex attractions are the result of a "genetic misfire" to be demeaning, as if they could be "cured" with a pill.