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

Originally posted by Annee

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.

Annee, your last sentence says it all.

Consenting adults should all have the same rights regarding relationships with other consenting adults, of either sex. If I'm bi and fall in love with a man one year, and a woman the next, it is none of society's business whether I have sexual relationships with them, or which one I may choose to marry.

The need to find the causes of sexual orientation has arisen because of bigotry. If it were not for the anti-homosexuality such as we see in this thread, there would not be the same need to prove orientation is an innate attribute.

Perhaps, one day, people will stop using the irrelevant scriptures of an ancient, bloodthirsty desert tribe as a means and excuse to control society.

reply to post by 547000


Yes, as a matter of fact people attracted to transsexuals, transgender, genderless are identified by orientations too. Pansexuality and Polysexuality.

Then attraction to scatological actions can be predetermined too.

reply to post by 547000


You know what, I'm seeing a pattern here. You keep going back to scat references. Freud would suggest your particular fascination not only with this topic but scat meant you have latent homosexual feelings. Kinsey would agree too.

Why don't you explain to me now why one is an orientation and one is a fetish? Provide links too from where you get your information.

Way to psychoanalyze someone over the internet. Real mature.

Anyway, orientation seems to imply it is an innate quality of an individual, and not something that can be changed or molded by experiences, which in turn develop different neural pathways. The main argument seems to go "you can't choose to be homosexual" but neither can you choose a fetish, but I don't think anyone would argue that a fetish is an innate trait of an individual. Why can't homosexuality be the same way?

Read this: www.narth.com...

reply to post by 547000


I wouldn't be the only one who would think so. The experts would agree too.

Read this and this and this.

Read this whole page. There are also other things you can read about on the website.

The social sciences are pretty influenced by political agendas. Simply calling people homophobic to stifle debate is not intellectually honest. This is what professors at universities do when they don't like ideas that do not agree with their ideologies. That's why I prefer the hard sciences, where you can't give a bull# post-modern criticism of a theory but have to prove it with real numbers.

reply to post by 547000


Calling you homophobic is the nicer of things I can think of right now.

Everytime someone says homosexuality is a choice they spit in the faces of the people who commit suicide over what they have no control over. That the people who are victims of corrective rape somehow deserve it.

These are the exact same attitudes people had towards the mentally ill or of a different ethnicity. Attitudes that most people now would find abhorrent.

Hitler's "scientists" and "doctors" did studies "proving" Jews were an inferior race of human beings.

That's why the couple were denied adoption rights. To stop ill-informed indoctrination of our youth.

Go ahead. Call me a homophobe or a nazi if you like. This is what most progressives do when faced by an idea that contradicts their ideology. I remain convinced that homosexuality is more about social and environmental influences than genetic. It is very similar to fetishes in that sense.

reply to post by Annee


There is no homosexual or heterosexual unless we are talking about a pair. There is also no reproduction unless we are talking about a pair. You said homosexuals are just as capable of reproducing as heterosexuals, and that is entirely false. Unless the homosexuals have heterosexual sex, in which case they are heterosexual, at least at that moment in time.

reply to post by curious7


Through modern science anybody can become a biological parent. Even men have now carried babies full-term. With cloning technology even a single person could become a biological parent of their clone, but I don't think that is what we are discussing.

Is a person born with any singular sexuality and I say no. Not Hetero, not Homo. "Sexuality" is a learned behavior in my opinion, and people learn what excites them. Now, when we are born, we are born as 1/2 of a matched biological pair. So, when we are born, we are biologically heterosexual by our physical characteristics. As we go through life, and especially puberty, we develop a psyche that will define our sexuality, and as someone mentioned earlier our "sexuality is all shades of gray" and in fact it continues to morph throughout our life. As a teenager I was entirely heterosexual, but as I gain sexual experience, I am curious about more and more and more things to keep me interested. At 17 I was a one woman, one man kind of guy, and extremely jealous. At 37 I am still 99% heterosexual, but now I have lost my jealousy, I like groups, and I like developed some other curiousities, who knows what I will like at 57?

No matter how my psyche changes, my biology will always be part of a matched heterosexual pair. My biology is absolutely useless except in that matched pair. So, anything I do outside of procreation, is just pleasureable, and if I am doing it for pleasure, it is a fetish.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

 

There is no homosexual or heterosexual unless we are talking about a pair. There is also no reproduction unless we are talking about a pair. You said homosexuals are just as capable of reproducing as heterosexuals, and that is entirely false. Unless the homosexuals have heterosexual sex, in which case they are heterosexual, at least at that moment in time.

That would make all people who refrain from sexual intercourse asexual.

Your orientation is a matter of who you are attracted to sexually, not who you do and don't have sex with.
I know a man who was faithfully married to a woman for 25 years. He tried to "do his duty" sexually, and managed to make two children with her. But he never once stopped being homosexual, because he longed to have a male partner, he fell in love with men, and he had to close his eyes and pretend he was with a male to get an erection.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by curious7

 

Through modern science anybody can become a biological parent. Even men have now carried babies full-term. With cloning technology even a single person could become a biological parent of their clone, but I don't think that is what we are discussing.

Is a person born with any singular sexuality and I say no. Not Hetero, not Homo. "Sexuality" is a learned behavior in my opinion, and people learn what excites them. Now, when we are born, we are born as 1/2 of a matched biological pair. So, when we are born, we are biologically heterosexual by our physical characteristics. As we go through life, and especially puberty, we develop a psyche that will define our sexuality, and as someone mentioned earlier our "sexuality is all shades of gray" and in fact it continues to morph throughout our life. As a teenager I was entirely heterosexual, but as I gain sexual experience, I am curious about more and more and more things to keep me interested. At 17 I was a one woman, one man kind of guy, and extremely jealous. At 37 I am still 99% heterosexual, but now I have lost my jealousy, I like groups, and I like developed some other curiousities, who knows what I will like at 57?

No matter how my psyche changes, my biology will always be part of a matched heterosexual pair. My biology is absolutely useless except in that matched pair. So, anything I do outside of procreation, is just pleasureable, and if I am doing it for pleasure, it is a fetish.

If you are wanting a man on the side, it's not a fetish, it's bisexuality.

reply to post by Kailassa


So his "biology" was heterosexual, and his "psychology" was homosexual. That is a common occurence, and since being homosexual was frowned upon until recently, many people lived the way your friend lived. In my opinion that is sad. We should all be allowed to seek out what pleases us. I still don't believe anyone is "born homosexual," but I also don't see any reason to deny somebody their desires. It really doesn't matter why they are homosexual in the grand scheme of things.

If you are wanting a man on the side, it's not a fetish, it's bisexuality.

Which is still a fetish. I believe all definitions of "sexuality" are fetishes. There is only one biological urge, and that is to procreate. Every urge after that is purely for pleasure, and so every variation of sexuality is just a fetish. There should be no negative connotation with the word fetish. We all have many fetishes.

I think the problem is our totally repressive society.

I think communal living is the best way. I would love to live with my wife, and my buddy, and his girlfriend, and my wife's friends, and we could all share in expenses, share duties in housework, share duties in child-rearing, and have sex with whoever we desired on any particular day. The benefits are enormous, and the only drawback is jealousy and social norms. It seems a shame that we are all limiting ourselves based on an unnatural societal norm.

BUT, I still think the courts were probably correct in the OP, because something alarmed them, somebody did some followup investigation, and the court agreed that this environment was unhealthy. So, this particular Christian couple had some issues that disqualified them, but not all Christians are disqualified. I wonder if my communal model would be qualified to adopt?

This is actually rediculous. "Bloodthirsty dessert tribe"? I believe that could be considered anti-semetic commentary couldn't it? And our nations (Canada/USA) to escape the bigotry and control of the governmental systems from European nations correct? To me it seems rediculous that a government is now what is controlling if Christians are capable parents, despite that exact religion being the one that our nations are founded upon!

reply to post by Kailassa



Bi-sexuality? And that is healthy for a child to see? Bi-sexuality means that you will or have had sex with at least 2 people. Is it healthy for a child to see a revolving door of people who you are fooling around with? Probably not. And what causes the spread of STDs? Probably having sex with multiple partners right? Its pretty cut/dried that thats JUST as unhealthy as "Bigotry" based on a strict moral system. And yes, that "JUST" was definately sarcasm.

reply to post by IronArm


"At least 2 partners" equals "revolving door?"



Is that before lunch, or in a day, or a weekend? If you tell me its anything more than a weekend, I will think you are a nun or a liar. (or extremely ugly and broke).

If I were the judge, I would be much more inclined to give a foster child to a couple that was healthy, open, and honest in their approach to everything in life, including sexuality, than to give it to some lying John Edwards type that thinks 2 partners is too many and homosexuals are going to hell?

(Not saying you are lying, or the John Edwards type, just saying that the most repressive are usually the most guilty and I don't trust them.)

reply to post by getreadyalready




Nope, not ugly, nor broke, nor virginal lol. I've been through my fair share of women, (before I started living a clean life) and I noticed how confusing it was for my son to see new women around every couple months/weeks/days... It made it difficult to have someone other than me to connect and feel loved by. Thats why I say what I say.

reply to post by IronArm


I totally agree with the effect on your son, but that is an emotional effect. Nobody should be allowing their child to get attached and then have to say goodbye to multiple partners. That is not fair to the child. I don't think sex partners should be coming home with you until they become boyfriend/girlfriend status. Definitely no one night stands at the house.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Kailassa

 

So his "biology" was heterosexual, and his "psychology" was homosexual. That is a common occurence, and since being homosexual was frowned upon until recently, many people lived the way your friend lived. In my opinion that is sad. We should all be allowed to seek out what pleases us. I still don't believe anyone is "born homosexual," but I also don't see any reason to deny somebody their desires. It really doesn't matter why they are homosexual in the grand scheme of things.

If you are wanting a man on the side, it's not a fetish, it's bisexuality.

Which is still a fetish. I believe all definitions of "sexuality" are fetishes. There is only one biological urge, and that is to procreate. Every urge after that is purely for pleasure, and so every variation of sexuality is just a fetish. There should be no negative connotation with the word fetish. We all have many fetishes.

I think the problem is our totally repressive society.

I think communal living is the best way. I would love to live with my wife, and my buddy, and his girlfriend, and my wife's friends, and we could all share in expenses, share duties in housework, share duties in child-rearing, and have sex with whoever we desired on any particular day. The benefits are enormous, and the only drawback is jealousy and social norms. It seems a shame that we are all limiting ourselves based on an unnatural societal norm.

BUT, I still think the courts were probably correct in the OP, because something alarmed them, somebody did some followup investigation, and the court agreed that this environment was unhealthy. So, this particular Christian couple had some issues that disqualified them, but not all Christians are disqualified. I wonder if my communal model would be qualified to adopt?

Heterosexual biology in this sense makes no sense. Of course he still had functioning apparatus.

A commune model that worked would be great, but it's hard enough to get the level of tolerance and commitment required from 2 people together, let alone a whole bunch. But if that's what you want, I hope one day you get it and it works.

With adoption in that setting the adoption workers would have to take into account the historical lack of long-term viability of group marriages or close-knit communes. They'd need to be sure that a person was firmly committed to the child's long-term care, because groups are too unpredictable. And when responsibility is shared between a group, you can end up with no-one feeling responsible.

I agree about the adoptive couple. Comments on the article indicated they came across in a radio interview as very homophobic. Although not religious myself, I'd be up in arms about anyone being passed over just because they were a member of a religion. I'm sure, if we could check out adoptive and fostering couples in the area, we'd find many are Christian.

One thing we do know is that we'll never hear the adoption workers' side of it. It would be unethical of them to make their reasons public outside of the court case.

People have often spoken of the right to adopt or to foster, but there cannot be a right to adopt which trumps the right of the child to have a suitable home.