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

Originally posted by IronArm
...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 don't know.

Minorities aren't humans? They don't deserve research studies - - because they aren't important to the majority?

Lifestyle? No - - it is not a Lifestyle. It is a birth right orientation.

Maybe we should only allow medicine - - to blond blue eyed humans.

If during my first pregnancy someone was to ask "What if your kid turns out gay"? I would put forth some concern. Gay parents as well as strait parents I think will both show concern of a child growing up to be gay in this society. Although I of course would accept my child as so but that does not mean I have no concerns over the life style. It was very difficult for me growing up knowing I was. In the beginning as a youngster I did not understand my thoughts or feelings and had no support so it was difficult being who I was or thought i was or not even knowing what was going on inside of me. We do not know the questions this couple had to answer in their interview. If they where asked about a sexuality of a child and brought forth real honest concerns was it held against them? And then asked about their religious views (we know that Christianity is being questioned these days) and how big a part does religion play in their personal lives. No one is perfect. But does that couples views make them less loving parents.To me a couple that decides to adopt has more time to think and prepare for their decision to have a child versus a couple who oops "honey I am pregnant" SHOCK! I am not a Hetero or Christian hater I believe to each is own and that there are bad apples in every group. So many children without families and we deny them that because of certain life style that a certain group does not agree with. If being Concerned Christian parents is a reason to not place a child in their hands then I say "PHOOEY"! This system is flawed.! I am gay I am Buddhist I am a mother of 3 and have a very open mind. Like I said before "give the kid back", unless there is an bigger issue that we do not know about.

Originally posted by curious7
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).

Many a gay man has had children with a hetero woman.
Many a lesbian has had children with a hetero male.

If there were only gays in the world - - reproduction would continue.

However - - if you are Hetero male and you have to have sex with another Hetero male - - - for reproduction to occur.

How would you feel?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by curious7
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).

Many a gay man has had children with a hetero woman.
Many a lesbian has had children with a hetero male.

If there were only gays in the world - - reproduction would continue.

However - - if you are Hetero male and you have to have sex with another Hetero male - - - for reproduction to occur.

How would you feel?

All depends.

I'm a hetero male and if scientific evidence was brought forward proving that only males can reproduce with each other then the question would be, would society accept that?

Some are open minded enough to say yes, others are brought up in the "all gay stuff is wrong" mentality and say it's inherently wrong.

And yes, as you said that can happen, it has happened but having had a few male and female gay friends over the years, none of them have ever had a feeling other than "eww nasty" toward the opposite sex so would refuse to reproduce in that way.

reply to post by Annee




How would he feel? It really doesn't matter for reproductive purposes...because that is not how it works!
I'd have to say...the day that the world goes backwards and I have to mate with a man to have a child, I know its time to start checking my food for heavy doses of '___'. To be blatant, its truely a non-issue.

And yes, I still hold firm that the "re-birth" and "funeral" is B.S. Handicaps of that nature ARE in FACT genetic. Not currently under research to see "what went wrong" or "why are they different". You yourself cannot say that it is absolutly without a single shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is factually a genetic marked destiny. I can say that my sister missing a chromosone is genetic. Its horrible that she has to live like that, but its true.

And where preytell did I state anything about minorities not being human? Where did i say that the only people who deserve to live are Aryan prototypes? I said that we need to address more pressing issues, and God help the ones who say that cancer research isn't as needed as looking for the 'gay gene'. The birth right orentation? Seriously? When did the gay groups start calling themselfs the "Birth Right Oreinted Homosexuals for Eqality"? Pretty sure they usually go about the "Gay Lifestyle Activists" don't they?

reply to post by curious7


No - - I don't care what society says.

How would YOU feel? Physically/emotionally/chemical reaction --- how do you think you would feel?

Do you think it would feel wrong? Do you think you would have guilt feelings?

Originally posted by IronArm
And yes, I still hold firm that the "re-birth" and "funeral" is B.S. Handicaps of that nature ARE in FACT genetic.

I am sorry you can not expand your mind to understand the concept.

It has nothing to do with the handicap.

My mother was a polio victim - - her dreams and life changed because of it. Not all handicaps are genetic.

reply to post by Annee



So assume that my sister had instead become handicapped, say by a random degenerative disease she contracted somehow. Would a re-birth be useful then? It doesn't seem like it makes sense. Maybe I'm too blue-collar redneck.

Again...we are deviating from the proper subject in order to justify ideals.

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Annee

 

So assume that my sister had instead become handicapped, say by a random degenerative disease she contracted somehow. Would a re-birth be useful then? It doesn't seem like it makes sense. Maybe I'm too blue-collar redneck.

Again...we are deviating from the proper subject in order to justify ideals.

Of course. Hey! Sometimes the mind and society programing - - - can be the biggest Block to understanding a concept.

All you are doing is removing any preconceptions and expectations - - with a visual. A powerful enough visual that makes those preconceptions and expectations obliterated.

Then in the re-birth celebration - - - you are welcoming the child/person with a clean slate. Its so you don't compare them to "what could have been". You start fresh - - from day one - - and accept this person as they are.

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.

How is denying anyone adoption for discrimination not equitable? If anything the judgement was indicative of just that: “Fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience”. I also think that homosexual couples who teach that heterosexuals are bad should not be allowed to adopt.

The inherently dangerous Christians are the fundamentalists who treat every word of the Bible as absolute irrefutable proof. In fact any religious person like that is inherently dangerous.

Why do you keep throwing Muslims into the mix? Are you showing your prejudice? The Qu’ran contains just as many inflammatory and disgusting passages promoting slavery and incest as the Bible, but are you implying that Muslims still practice it?

Go to a Christian orphanage if you want to adopt without having your beliefs scrutinize but if you go through a government agency expect it because it has no obligation to protect the parents, only the child. Period.

This is absurd ,and it shoud not happen in a world that is democratic and religious freedom, because a citizen has the right to be in favor or against homosexual,,,

Originally posted by dccruibay
This is absurd ,and it shoud not happen in a world that is democratic and religious freedom, because a citizen has the right to be in favor or against homosexual,,,

NO - they don't. Not if they are going through a government program.

reply to post by sarra1833


AMEN BROTHER!!!!! SOMEONE HAD TO TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!!!

reply to post by Annee


Yes, it is a fetish. It is also the only natural way to reproduce for animals that have opposing sexes.

reply to post by 547000


Then non-reproductive sex had for pleasure is a fetish.

reply to post by Dendro


Well, of course it is. Your point?

reply to post by 547000


Strange, the Bible condones sex for pleasure. I guess God is a fetishist.

If you have an attraction to your own sex there's no reason it can't be put in the same category as attraction to goths, or BDSM, ducks, trannies, or whatever the hell gets you sexually excited. But heterosexual sex, again, is the only way for a species to reproduce. Should attraction to trannies be called an orientation or a fetish?

reply to post by 547000


You can include homosexuality as a fetish as much as you can heterosexuality by your standards. Sexual attraction to another human being is an orientation, a sexual preferrence to an object or body part is a fetish. The only way you could try and say that homosexuality was a fetish was if the sexual acts performed were abnormal but they are not, they are the exact same actions that heterosexuals do.

The American Psychological Association states that "[s]exual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only). Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."[10]

And this is what happens when you try and force a change in someone's orientation.

reply to post by Dendro


So I take it that getting turned on by transsexuals is another possible orientation by your views, and not just a sexual fetish? I think it's a fetish. I don't think there's a transsexual attraction gene. I think it's a preference tempered by one's experiences.