Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christian couple lose their High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexual

page: 37
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Annee
 



Or mayhaps forwarding spending to more pressing issues, such as cancer research, hospital funding, educational expences...are a wee bit more more pressing than if a gay person has a brain that works differently that a normal one. Just a hypothesis.


Who are you to determine what is a more pressing issue?

If there was factual evidence of what causes some to be attracted to same sex - - - it would once and for all legitimize their birth right - - - and shut up the religious dogma.

I consider it an immensely valuable study - - - for individuals and social acceptance.




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


There is nothing wrong with gays reproductive system. They have the same biological capabilities you do.

If the only thing that mattered was functionality to produce the next generation - - they are just as capable as you.

IMO - - anyone that bored with sex - - is missing some kind of fulfillment in other parts of life.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Annee
 



The question again...is it wrong to raise a child as a heteroseuxal? No mind religion...raise them that men having sex with women is normal (procreation) and that men with men (non-essential pleasure) is wrong.


Secular homophobic parents should be denied the right to adopt. If a couple believed men are superior to women and the woman's only place is the kitchen, they should be denied.

There are enough stupid and ignorant people in the world. At least someone is trying to stop Idiocracy from happening.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Well, lets look at all the counter-statements you made. My sister, she is severly disabled...no funeral stuff there. An ex, has a child with a near crippling Downs Syndrome...no funeral recomendations. That seems to be a little bit of side-note hodgepodge you heard from a friend of a friend. Assuming of course.

Neurological pathways do expand with continued use. Essentialy this means that everytime you see something and dwell upon it, your brain will naturally create an easier path for you to acsess the information contained in that region. Kind of like a river, it takes the path of least resistance. That said, at 10 you have a thought about a homosxual relationship. That thought can grow and grow untill it becomes your reality could it not? And the possiblities of murderers being born... did they scan the brain activity of 3 year olds and wait till they were in their 30's to tell us they were born killers?

And as for the more pressing issue comment...what is truely more important? A life, or a lifestyle? Being able to breathe or being able to have do anything you wish, as backed by science? Ask a person with lung cancer which is more important.

And to Dendro, I keep trying to bring this up but it keeps being ignored, because more often than not it becomes a racial issue, but what about Muslims? I know for a fact, yes a fact, that women are suppresed, homophobia is taught, and yet they would not be denied such a privilidge of adoption. Where is the equality in this? And my God... Should I be denied my rights to raise children because of my moral system? I have a brilliant child who is doing quite well, despite me and my wife not approving homosexuality.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


There is nothing wrong with gays reproductive system. They have the same biological capabilities you do.

If the only thing that mattered was functionality to produce the next generation - - they are just as capable as you.

IMO - - anyone that bored with sex - - is missing some kind of fulfillment in other parts of life.


That statement is entirely wrong when looking at reproductive pairs. A homosexual pair has zero chance of reproduction. They are not just as capable as heterosexual pair. The only way your statement make sense is if you are finally agreeing with me. We are born as part of a biolgical pair where everyone is equally functional to produce the next generation, so long as they enter a heterosexual arrangement. So, we are all born equally heterosexual from a biological standpoint. The ones that later enter a homosexual relationship are not responding to biological urges, but rather to psychological urges.

And, wouldn't being bored with sex point toward a lot of fulfillment in other parts of life? I can see how saying one was bored with a spouse could be interpreted as missing some other emotional attachment, but being bored with the act of sex is just a product of overexposure and finding other fulfilling activities. People get bored with baseball, or waterskiing, or stamp collecting, and it isn't indicative of missing some other fulfillment, it is just pure boredom, often it is burnout from overexposure, and often times other interesting activities get more allotted time.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by IronArm
 


Muslims have been denied adoption rights based on their belief systems. I also know of Muslims, like Christians, who know when their teachings go too far or are too outdated and will adapt to the present time. In Islam when women have their first menstrual cycle they have to start wearing a head covering, though today only a small percentage actually follow that law anymore.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by IronArm
 


Muslims have been denied adoption rights based on their belief systems. I also know of Muslims, like Christians, who know when their teachings go too far or are too outdated and will adapt to the present time. In Islam when women have their first menstrual cycle they have to start wearing a head covering, though today only a small percentage actually follow that law anymore.



That doens't happen too often in Canada...the whole adapting to "keep up with it" thing that is. And think about this...why has the world changed in the manner it has, so that morals have to be "updated"? Liberalization and justification became much more rampant methinks. But if you know of Muslims being denied, then I guess all organized (or personal religious beliefs) religions are harmful to all children, and no moral direction is needed to help them mature right?

Where do you think guilt comes from? How do you know that you would be wrong to steal your neighbours auto?
Your buddy's wife? Or is it just in time, as we learn that our teachings go too far (again) that it will be ok, and come out in the wash.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

There is nothing wrong with gays reproductive system. They have the same biological capabilities you do.

If the only thing that mattered was functionality to produce the next generation - - they are just as capable as you.




Originally posted by getreadyalready
That statement is entirely wrong when looking at reproductive pairs. A homosexual pair has zero chance of reproduction.


Really?

Where did I mention homosexual pair?
edit on 2-3-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by IronArm
 


Muslims have been denied adoption rights based on their belief systems. I also know of Muslims, like Christians, who know when their teachings go too far or are too outdated and will adapt to the present time. In Islam when women have their first menstrual cycle they have to start wearing a head covering, though today only a small percentage actually follow that law anymore.



That doens't happen too often in Canada...the whole adapting to "keep up with it" thing that is. And think about this...why has the world changed in the manner it has, so that morals have to be "updated"? Liberalization and justification became much more rampant methinks. But if you know of Muslims being denied, then I guess all organized (or personal religious beliefs) religions are harmful to all children, and no moral direction is needed to help them mature right?

Where do you think guilt comes from? How do you know that you would be wrong to steal your neighbours auto?
Your buddy's wife? Or is it just in time, as we learn that our teachings go too far (again) that it will be ok, and come out in the wash.


You are falling victim to confirmational bias. You see women in burqas and know that there are muslims but how many non-veiled ones can you readily identify?

Once again, you see small pockets of communities who choose not to adapt to Canadian customs and use this as confirmational bias, but then ignore how "Westernized" majority are, especially their kids.

Religion is not the ultimate authority on morality. If anything it is the exact opposite. One does not need religion to know the difference between right and wrong, just the experience of life.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 




So....what you are trying to tell us is that moral direction from a relgion is a bad thing? What do we need to follow then? Government? Your estranged uncle Phil in Ohio? Or just justify all our own actions as permissible. I'd love to get in some brawls on the side of the street with some people (hypothetically let us say I like to fight), but I'm sure the police wouldn't find that too appreciable, despite my saying that I believe it to be morally upright.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Annee
 



Well, lets look at all the counter-statements you made. My sister, she is severly disabled...no funeral stuff there. An ex, has a child with a near crippling Downs Syndrome...no funeral recomendations. That seems to be a little bit of side-note hodgepodge you heard from a friend of a friend. Assuming of course.


You can take that personally (which I figured you would) - - - or you could try to understand what's being said.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


So , they are being persecuted because of their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ? Hmm..... Sounds like a Law Suit coming there.......



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IronArm
 


No, merely stating that religion is not a prerequisite for having morals. That religion does not earn you a free pass to the front of the line or to bypass the safeguards the rest of the world has to go through.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
as for the more pressing issue comment...what is truely more important? A life, or a lifestyle? Being able to breathe or being able to have do anything you wish, as backed by science? Ask a person with lung cancer which is more important.


My mother died of Pancreatic Cancer. My father died of lung Cancer.

It does not change how I feel about the funding of studies to find the genetic marker that makes some humans gay.

What is really really sad - - - is that it does have to be legitimized - - - for those who continue to hold on to religious dogma and ignorance.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Thats not nessisarily taking it personally...I've just never heard of such a thing. It seems rediculous.

And have been in such a situation as you have been in with cancer...how would wanting all the help you could get for these people not as important as a minority having a supported lifestyle? I don't understand the reasoning... maybe its because I see things in a family orientation, and would rather do all I could in that manner. I dont know.
And I know it seems like what I said is harsh, and I am sorry for your loss, truely I am. Its horrible.

As for the statements by Dendro...where did I say that any religious group should have a free pass? I'm saying all should be equitable. If a gay couple can adopt, so should a Christian. And what safeguards? Are Christians inherintly dangerous? I'd have to say....I'm fairly safe. And despite being a bodybuilder of rather large stature, people tend to trust me because of my passitivity and gentle mannerisms in spite of my indimidating size. Being the nature that I could have had, (think Mike Tyson) following Christianity has taught me, and others whom I know of previous disreputiable characteristics, of congeniality, gentleness, so on and so forth.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Getting back to what this thread is about.....
Now we no main stream media only reports parts of a story. Of course in this day and age homosexuality and religion are hot topics, kind of makes me wonder if these are just a small part of the reason. Have these people come forward and made a statement about the situation. I truly believe there is more to it than this couple being christian and and against homosexuality. Maybe they said something in an interview that the social worker (i guess that's is what they are called) from the adoption agency did not agree with. Maybe the social worker is a non religious homosexual or has a family member that is and well brought forth bias opinions and then it all blew up out of hand. Look at us here on this thread. We have strong individual opinions. Gay couples are able to adopt theses days, I do not understand the difference. I have gay friends who look down or just do not like Heteros or certain religions in that matter. I had to take a step back from this and wonder what the real deal on this story is. Media does not tell all. They only tell the parts that will make a story exciting and controversial. Maybe there are financial matters involved. Massive background checks are made, maybe something in those reports had a slight hand in the decision. We always put down main stream media on ATS but yet we listen to all they say and debate or argue about it. Maybe a little more digging on this couple is what is needed to get the real story or reasons as to why they where denied.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by controldiction
 




Gotta say... Good point. Things do get extremely heated on both sides, and I have to applaude your ability to stand back and be a little more objective in the matter. The discussion that ensuede was a a bit of a monster that grew. I take some responsiblity for being an involved instigator. And yes, the title is defiantely one to instigate mass attraction and flare-ups.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Being of a specific sexual orientation does not make a person an automatic bad parent.

Bigotry and ignorance do.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Annee
 



Thats not nessisarily taking it personally...I've just never heard of such a thing. It seems rediculous.



NO - - it is not ridiculous. And I did not make it up. I was reading on a site for parents of Autistic kids.

Every parent dreams and plans for the perfect child. That their child will be beautiful - intelligent - athletic - grow up - get married - provide grandchildren - - - etc etc.

The Funeral idea - - - is so you never compare the "disabled" child to that dream. The Re-birth Ceremony - - is to honor and accept the child just as they are. The dream changes to fit this child.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


There is nothing wrong with gays reproductive system. They have the same biological capabilities you do.

If the only thing that mattered was functionality to produce the next generation - - they are just as capable as you.

IMO - - anyone that bored with sex - - is missing some kind of fulfillment in other parts of life.


That statement is entirely wrong when looking at reproductive pairs. A homosexual pair has zero chance of reproduction. They are not just as capable as heterosexual pair. The only way your statement make sense is if you are finally agreeing with me. We are born as part of a biolgical pair where everyone is equally functional to produce the next generation, so long as they enter a heterosexual arrangement. So, we are all born equally heterosexual from a biological standpoint. The ones that later enter a homosexual relationship are not responding to biological urges, but rather to psychological urges.

And, wouldn't being bored with sex point toward a lot of fulfillment in other parts of life? I can see how saying one was bored with a spouse could be interpreted as missing some other emotional attachment, but being bored with the act of sex is just a product of overexposure and finding other fulfilling activities. People get bored with baseball, or waterskiing, or stamp collecting, and it isn't indicative of missing some other fulfillment, it is just pure boredom, often it is burnout from overexposure, and often times other interesting activities get more allotted time.


Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong but I was gonna comment on Annee's post and then I saw yours so here's something for both of you.

Homosexual couples have the capability of being biological parents even if it's not in the usual manner (through IVF or some other donor host or sperm in the case of same sex females).

Asexuals are the ones bored of sex, either because it doesn't fulfil them or because they had a horrific rape/abuse experience in early life that affected them so badly that they don't even become attracted sexually to a member of the same sex, they view sexual relations as being wrong, abhorrent and not to be explored.






top topics



 
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join