For example, a women who holds the mandate that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children will not care that upon success, she would be denying thousands of children living in the often horrible conditions of foster care, the chance at a happy home. To her, it may be far more important to cease the spread of homosexuality being seen as "a viable lifestyle choice". Whereas in the alternative view, gay couples may insist on being allowed to adopt children, even though it may put considerable emotional strain on children being placed in an environment where they may be stigmatized or ostracized. These gay couples would probably not care that their being able to adopt would be seen by some as a degradation of the moral fabric of society, because they would simply be happy to be providing a home to a child.
This "ends justifying the means" kind of thinking, in which a person puts their own moral position above the needs of others is the inherent danger of morality. In the adoption case mentioned above, both sides failed to truly consider the children. One side failed to recognize that some children would profit immensely from being raised in a happy same sex home, and the other side failed to realize that they would be forcing children into a situation in which they could be judged and put through emotional turmoil that they may not even understand.
Precisely the same views as mine.Satya said:My thoughts are the same in the respect that I believe that civil unions should have all the same legal rights and benefits as marriage. As it is now, civil unions enjoy only about a quarter of the rights as marriage. However, I don't think it is right to force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. There are plenty of institutions that will marry same sex couples , so there is no reason to infringe on other's religious freedom.
Yeah it had the word morality in it, I apologise for not reading it, but I get bored easy.Satya said:As far as my thoughts on adoption, I had a chance to see it from both perspectives thanks to the latest 30 Days documentary and I used it as an example and wrote a brief piece on it in my morality thread...
For example, a women who holds the mandate that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children will not care that upon success, she would be denying thousands of children living in the often horrible conditions of foster care, the chance at a happy home. To her, it may be far more important to cease the spread of homosexuality being seen as "a viable lifestyle choice". Whereas in the alternative view, gay couples may insist on being allowed to adopt children, even though it may put considerable emotional strain on children being placed in an environment where they may be stigmatized or ostracized. These gay couples would probably not care that their being able to adopt would be seen by some as a degradation of the moral fabric of society, because they would simply be happy to be providing a home to a child.
This "ends justifying the means" kind of thinking, in which a person puts their own moral position above the needs of others is the inherent danger of morality. In the adoption case mentioned above, both sides failed to truly consider the children. One side failed to recognize that some children would profit immensely from being raised in a happy same sex home, and the other side failed to realize that they would be forcing children into a situation in which they could be judged and put through emotional turmoil that they may not even understand.
Unless someone is pansexual.ShaiGar said:1. homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's a born sexual preference
ShaiGar said:notes:
1. homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's a born sexual preference
2. I do agree that the children deserve a happy home, even within a home where they would not get a biologically appropriate upbringing
3. disagree, MOST would just want to help, there are some who would do it for the political point. (only arguing absolutes here, not the point)
ShaiGar said:pan sexual? Do you mean bisexual, or "has a thing for Syrinx pipes and goat legs"?
just checked it out, so basically someone who doesn't care about any of the sexual hangups the rest of us have. someone totally free.
That'd be absolutely fine with me, given that the child gets a same gender role model, and someone to learn about how to treat the other genderSerket said:what about one heterosexual person and one homosexual person having a child?
Eg a lesbian having a child with a straight man, where neither have another partner, and both take a role raising the child?
YesSerket said:Is your objection based on the idea that children need two differently gendered parents?
Cannot stand single parents either. It tends to be really damn retarded. I've met far too many single mothers with very little sense of responsibility toward the child, constantly dumping the kid on their mother or a day care because they need to make money in order to support both. I am an advocate of a stay at home parent, regardless of the gender which stays at home.Serket said:How is this different to single parents?
It is possible within the bounds of "Anything is possible". It's not good sense. The parent is the one that they see most of the time and they tend to model themselves off of.Serket said:Is it not possible for a child of gay parents to give their child masculine/feminine role models apart from themselves?
Serket said:Also, for those who don't think homosexual couples should raise children...
Serket said:What about children with effeiminate fathers or masculine mothers?
Are they not getting a warped view of their gender?
Serket said:Children of gay parents may have gender identity problems. Oh really, do you know this for a fact? Have you ever met the child of a gay couple?
Also it always amuses me who Christians, who pride model their lives on Jesus would judge and exclude people, when Jesus himself would have embraced them.
I'm also guessing part of the fear around homosexual parents is the idea that they would make the children gay? Firstly this is not the case, secondly why should it matter if it was? This means you are judging that homosexuality is all out wrong, and not just different.
Serket said:Ah, yes...don't worry I irritated myself there.
I made assumptions about other peoples assumptions to save time (I'm at work)
I made an ass out of u and me
I'll work on it