Arkansas recently passed a measure prohibiting unmarried adoptions by a healthy margin: 56.9%. The measured banned adoptions by both homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples. The measure is a good step in placing the well-being of children ahead of the selfishness of grownups who don't know how to act grown-up (i.e. put the needs of others--specifically children--ahead of themselves).
Florida, on the other hand, is taking a step backwards. Their Supreme Court wants to reward those who even refuse to engage in natural sex with custody of developing, impressionable children.
Judicial activism has once again put the self-centered desires of homosexual activists ahead of the welfare of children, with the activist court finding "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting."
Homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence and promiscuity--even among homosexual couples who make the claim of "monogamy." Such environments are not suitable for children.
What's more, placing a child in a homosexual home automatically deprives the child of either a mother or a father. Children need both a mother and father to have a good chance of growing up health and well-adjusted. Homosexual homes by default rob them of this. It also sends the detrimental message to the child that one or the other sex is unnecessary or undesirable.
The needs of children and the priority placed on their healthy upbringing and development used to come first. Today's demented society, however, places politically correct affirmation of adults ahead of the child's needs.
In addition to protecting human life, protecting children is one of the most important duties of any government. No other segment of society is more vulnerable to multiple avenues of harm, and no other segment of society is less able to defend themselves from harm.
Such hostility toward healthy families and toward children--especially on the part of the government charged with their protection--is reprehensible.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Child Welfare Takes Back Seat to Judicial Activism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe homosexuals have a higher rate of depression, substance abuse, etc because they have to go through life dealing with inequality and hatred? Maybe you should look up the difference between correlation and causation. If you would drop your prejudice and accept people for who they are, I think you would see that not all homosexuals are bad people. You're ignorantly labeling a lot of people you don't even know as bad parents. What about gay people who don't practice promiscuous sex? What about gay people who don't drink or do drugs? Yes, there are bad people in every group (even devout Christians), but you the manner in which you are spreading ignorance and hate towards a group of people is completely unchristian. I know plenty of gay people who are Christian, clean, sober, and just as capable of being good parents as you and me. Probably even better than you, because they would teach their kids to be loving and accepting of people who are different than them.
Have you looked up any of the research on homosexuals, "open minded Christian"?
If you had, you might have learned that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are highly promiscuous; even those who make the claim of "monogamy" usually involve outside partners (so yes, as with "marriage," they twist the meaning to suit their purposes so that in the end it means nothing).
If you depended a little more on what your Bible teaches you (you claimed to be a Christian with your name), you might learn that it's not a matter of "accepting people who are different than you," but a matter of an immoral practice that God makes abundantly clear in both Old and New Testaments that He highly disapproves of. If you really are a Christian, you should put God's truth ahead of the worlds self-centered opinion.
One final thing: did you ever stop to consider that maybe homosexuals have higher rates of depression, substance abuse, etc. because their consciences are hammering them, and depression is the natural result, and substance abuse may be the attempt to sooth the pain of that aggravating conscience?
As a former heterosexually promiscuous drunk, I can attest that the likelihood of such a possibility is so high it's off the charts.
But then, considering something like that would require stepping away from politically-correct feel-good pap and using a little common sense and a look at the ole moral compass.
Up for it?
I'd like to know exactly what "research" you're looking at. Many of the studies done on homosexuality are incredibly biased and basically worthless. They collect their data from bars and other places where a certain type of people hang out, and therefore provide skewed results. Every study done by the APA has shown that children who come from two parent homosexual households are just as well off as those from two parent heterosexual households. Further, most of the recent studies have pointed to a genetic cause of homosexuality, meaning it's not a choice like you like to think it is. It's harder to discriminate and hate people for a choice than for a genetic trait, isn't it? To me, marriage is a bond between two people who love each other. I don't see how that meaning is any different with homosexuals.
You can show me all the Bible verses that condemn homosexuality you want, and I'll show you more that tell you to love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe you should read the Sermon on the Mount again.
If your conscience theory were true, the best way to remedy the situation would be to stop the waterfall of hateful rhetoric that you pour on them. Considering the genetic influences, your words are not going to make anyone any less gay. You're only making the situation worse by making people feel bad about something they can't control. Do you think Jesus would write blogs about how immoral and gross gays are, or do you think He would show them understanding and compassion, and that drugs and alcohol and promiscuous sex are not good ideas?
You can call this "feel good pap" if you want, but my moral compass tells me that I'm not any better than anyone else. Apparantly yours does.
Get off your soapbox, Mr. Ellis
I have two questions for you,
If children need a mother and a father to have a good chance of growing up "right," then where do you think all of today's gay adults came from? Unlike younger generations, they could only have come from heterosexual couples, as that was the only legal option at the time. This also has unfortunate implications for the silly "gay parents will raise gay children" argument.
And if my husband dies and I choose not to remarry, should the state take my four-year-old daughter away from me for sending her the message that I "neither want nor need to provide her with a father figure"? Would you say that I'm a bad mother unless I find another spouse?
"Open minded christian": Do you consider sources such as International Journal of Epidemiology, the New England Journal of Medicine, The Gay Report, the Department of Justice, the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention, the American Sociological Review, the Archives of General Psychology, the Handbook of Family Diversity, the Washington Blade, the Journal of Sex Research and others to be "incredibly biased and basically worthless"?
Or is it just easier to keep your head in the sand and pretend that "all the studies are biased" because that's easier than doing a little research...and a little thinking? And perhaps (gasp) making a moral judgment?
You might also exercise a little of that skepticism about anything the APA says. They considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder until 1973. Do you know what changed their mind? It wasn't any new scientific breakthrough. It wasn't groundbreaking medical research. It wasn't clinical research. It was the protests, harassment and coercion of homosexual activists who disrupted the APAs meetings and intimidated them (yes, even doctors are human too) into making a politically correct decision...one that a huge number of APA members strongly disagreed with, I might add.
And allow me to correct you on what "the recent studies have pointed" out with regard "to a genetic cause of homosexuality." Nothing. That's right. Nothing. Science has not found a "gay gene" at all. None. Some clinical research has done surveys and found information which may be interpreted to POSSIBLY indicate a genetic factor. The only problem is, the research methods involved are usually flawed and biased. Oh, one other problem: they usually can't be replicated by others. Wait, still one more problem with these studies: they can ALSO be interpreted to indicate environmental factors.
Besides, if you really are the Christian you claim to be, wouldn't what God says (as the Creator of human beings, the person who certainly should know how we operate, and the truth about everything) trump the fumblings in the dark of human beings who apparently don't know as much as they think they know? If God said, "I created men to have sex with women and vice versa," does that carry any weight with you? If God said, "Men having sex with men and women having sex with women is morally reprehensible," as a professed Christian, does that mean anything to you?
Christ tells us to love one another. Encouraging another person to commit an act which God has made overwhelmingly clear that he hates is NOT an example of love. Encouraging a person to engage in an unhealthy behavior is NOT an example of love.
I'm no better than anyone else. Without Christ's grace, I'm damned to Hell. What's more, I deserve it 10 times over.
But because of God's grace, I listen to what God says, and I try to obey it. And he makes it abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is contrary to his design, that it is immoral, and that he does not approve of it.
Why don't you choose to listen to God over the feel-good pap of the world...that is only good for sending people straight to Hell?
Anonymous 11:24, this has nothing to do with a hypothetical "gay parents will raise gay children" argument. It has to do with providing a stable environment (which, due to the high number of health issues, high rate of domestic violence, and lack of relationship longevity common among homosexuals, is unlikely) and a normal, balanced environment where the interaction of both sexes can be modeled (impossible in a homosexual home, and it sends the message to the child that one of the sexes is either unnecessary or undesirable--or both).
If your husband dies and you choose not to remarry, the implicit message remains that a mother and father are the normal and proper setting for the family--one that was unavoidably interrupted by death. It would be unfortunate if you were unable to find a good man who could provide you with the love and companionship most people need, and who could provide many of the same fatherly benefits your first husband provided to your daughter, but you would not be contradicting the healthy norm if no suitable candidate was available. In other words, it would be a deficiency in the area of family roles and responsibilities, but it would not be a contradiction of the importance of one of those roles and benefits.
However, if you subjected your daughter to a home where you took another female as a sex partner, you would be sending the message that a father is either unnecessary or undesirable. This would contradict the normality and benefit of the role of a father.
"And allow me to correct you on what "the recent studies have pointed" out with regard "to a genetic cause of homosexuality." Nothing. That's right. Nothing. Science has not found a "gay gene" at all. None. Some clinical research has done surveys and found information which may be interpreted to POSSIBLY indicate a genetic factor. The only problem is, the research methods involved are usually flawed and biased. Oh, one other problem: they usually can't be replicated by others. Wait, still one more problem with these studies: they can ALSO be interpreted to indicate environmental factors."
Open Minded Christian seems to need a little help here.
Mr. Ellis,
As long as we're talking about evidence, what has science found in the way of changing one's homosexual orientation? The only "evidence" I've ever seen amounts to nothing more than personal testimony, which as anyone with half a brain would agree is extremely flawed, biased, and unreplicable as evidence, very much like the surveys and research methods you so happily criticize. What's more, the vast majority of these testimonies of "change" just so happen to come from individuals who are already willing to accept claims without evidence anyway - ie, Christians. How convenient! And any intellectually honest person would be skeptical and weigh other factors, such as societal pressure, guilt, denial, self-loathing, the desire to conform and be accepted, fear of disappointing one's family and friends, etc, when discussing how accurate and truthful these testimonies of "change" really are rather than accepting them without question, as you have done.
So no matter how much you deride the scientific community for producing flawed, questionable data, at least they TRY to substantiate their claims with more than anecdotal evidence, which is more than we can say about you. All you have to offer in favor of your argument are the personal testimonies of people you most likely do not even know.
And really Mr. Ellis, leave Open Minded Christian alone. If he/she wants to call him/herself a Christian, that's their business. There are few things as pathetic as seeing a fanatic like you pick apart his fellow believers to see who the "real" ones are. Honestly, there are more than enough Christians out there who give your religion a bad name, and in far worse ways than applying a modern, contextual approach to the five or six verses against homosexuality. Maybe you should focus your attention on the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church or the evangelicals who bomb abortion clinics rather than waste it on someone whose only "offense" to Christianity is not being mortally disgusted by the thought of two men or two women in love.
Anonymous 2:22, I think you might need some help.
You seem to be implying that human beings are mere slaves to their lusts. You might enjoy living like an animal, but I don't think most people are happy with that. And they don't need to be, because God gave us the ability to CHOOSE.
Many homosexuals have testified to their complete deliverance from the temptation to engage in homosexual behavior, just as many drunks and drug addicts have likewise been delivered from their dangerous behavior. I'm a former drunk, I can tell you with God as my witness that I haven't wanted a drink in the slightest for nearly 15 years. Am I a liar? Am I delusional?
I think it's pretty clear that someone who believes human beings cannot change is themselves delusional--delusional because they are unwilling to change or too lazy to change, and it's easier to manufacture the assumption that they cannot.
As for me "leaving Open Minded Christian alone," you might note that it was he/she who came here peddling lies; I didn't come to him/her. And if someone is going to call themselves a Christian, they deserve to be held accountable to the beliefs that make one a Christian. A Christian is a "Christ follower" or someone who is "like Christ." Christ made it clear that Gods design for the expression of human sexuality is between a man and a woman in marriage; if someone claims otherwise, then one is making a claim in contradiction to Christ. It isn't just "their business" if they make a claim to being a Christian and then spout nonsense in contradiction to Christ's teaching. That kind of theological recklessness discredits other Christians and dishonors Christ himself.
I see that you are too intellectually shallow to engage on a theological level and simply resort to infantile and illegitimate comparisons between authentic Christianity and hate-mongers like the Fred Phelps gang. It might make you feel good (just like the pap "Open Minded Christian" was parroting), but it has no basis in fact, truth or reality.
Why don't you quit being so morally lazy and accept responsibility for your actions. Stop pretending you're an animal who has no moral culpability for your choices. God created you for a more noble destiny. Act like a human being! Take responsiblity!
Post a Comment