Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

you pick the option you support:

1. Majority can not impose morality: You can insult christians by flaunting your immorality and using the religious communities terms to describe your vulgar relationships because we can not force our morality on you. Plus we do away with FORCED (through taxation) welfare, affirmative action, animal rights, and all of the other leftist agenda items.
2. Majority can impose morality: If the majority want the fore mentioned array of social issues they can but we can decide to surpress any public(or private for that matter) gay activity as long as 51% of the voting public feel like it.

You can only choose one option. which is it?

Those choices are not the only choices in this nation. You don’t seem to grasp the concept of the difference between social and economic. Social: gay marraige. Economic: welfare. Social issues are beliefs, ususally steping from religion vs. no religion debates. In this case, the majority should not be able to force their beliefs. Economic issues are governmental in nature and exist only in law. In this case, it is not about forcing beliefs, but passing laws.

As much as I’ve been called “nothing more than a typical liberal,” and a leftist, I’m conservative on most social issues (MOST, not all, obviously) and liberal on economic views (this isn’t about me, just showing that it is indeed possible). One could just as easily be liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones. Laws are different from beliefs. Economic is different from social.

and you still didn’t answer my question

 

[NoMoreGames]

I have a some confusion on the side of those who say that mothers and distinct role and fathers have distinct roles (or at least that a male and female are necessary to parent). I won’t use rhetorical trickery to try to back you into a corner, I’ll explain my whole thought process right here.

Situation A, mom stays at home, dad works. Mom teaches how to be social, dad teaches how to be independent (I read that somewhere on this topic, I’m thinking it was that article).

Situation B, dad stays at home, mom works. So therefore we must assume dad teaches how to be social, mom teaches how to be independent.

So far, it has be said that either is fine and not confusing to the child, as long as there is both a mother and a father.

Looking at both, we see that fathers are capable of both, as well as mothers. Why then, is it necessary to have both a father and a mother when one father could teach independence (situation A) and on father could teach social skills (situation B)?

 

[AliciaCL]

A democratic state or country is a sovereign. They DO have the inherent right to decide whether the state should endorse gay marriage. They’ve also decided no multiple marriages or marriages to children, which are allowed in other non-Christian societies. The USA’s declaration of independence and the Constitution – like it or not – incorporate some fundamental Christian concepts; these docs were inspried by Christians. Those underpinnings are still present. The majority opposes gay marriage and they do so as a derivative of Christian philosophy incorpoarted into this country.

I’m still waiting to hear the cogent argument why gay conduct is moral. There isn’t one. It’s just you like it, you want it, therefore the public should support it. You don’t decide what rights you have. The people decide what “rights” there are. They have clearly decided they do not support gay marriage.

A gay couple can love a child and provide like anyone else. But they can never, never, never provide the example of motherhood AND fatherhood, the fundamental building blocks of a society. They necessarily give their children a human deficit. You can’t alter your gender, change DNA. Sorry, you are mad at nature but it simply cannot be. You can “marry” and adopt, you can emote about it all you want but the children will suffer just as children of divorce suffer, period. It hurts the whole society.

It’s a horrible cross to bear. I can’t imagine it at all. If it’s genetic it’s like being born an alcoholic who would just like to have a few nice drinks with friends and enjoy simple conversation. Just can’t happen.

Back to the ultimate issue. You claim the government is imposing a religion on you by not allowing gay marriage. Seriously, this is like the Muslims coming into a country, Brittain, USA, European countries, etc. and demanding that the country submit to their Sharia law because it’s their religious right to have things that way. Doesn’t matter that women could get civil divorces under the country’s law; sharia law would impose its own separate hurdles. That is government imposed discrimination which our system doesn’t go for. People in Europe are beginning to sucker for this kind of argument because its been so harped upon. It doesn’t make it any less erroneous and detrimental to society.**

 

[Squishy]

If gay couples cannot have their rights as a couple recognized by the state they should outlaw homosexuality again. This is what it comes down to in the end. If they are not willing to do that (boy i’d like to see them try) then they should be willing to recognises gay life partners in the same was as hertosexual life partners.

The governments can’t have their cake and eat it.

 

[AngelAshley]

AliciaCL:

I’m still waiting to hear the cogent argument why gay conduct is moral.

Is love moral? “Gay conduct” encompasses many things, but you speak as if all of those things are immoral. What’s immoral about two people that love each other wanting to share their lives?

AliciaCL:

The people decide what “rights” there are. They have clearly decided they do not support gay marriage.

Clearly? Then why is there still so much legal argument over it? The people do not decide on “rights” - “rights” are things that, in an ideal society, everybody should have regardless of what opressers think. You speak can’t speak on behalf of “The People” since the oppinions of “The People” are very much split - far from unanamously decided.

AliciaCL:

But they can never, never, never provide the example of motherhood AND fatherhood, the fundamental building blocks of a society. They necessarily give their children a human deficit. You can’t alter your gender, change DNA.

In your oppinion. You have obviously never seen a loving gay couple provide a childs needs from either gender to a child. It does happen. What makes them “fundamental building blocks of a society” anyway? What about childless couples? Are they not part of society?
You seem to be confused as to Gender and Sex:
Sex is a biological concept, usually governing how the body forms and develops, etc. You may be surprised to know that biological sex is not limited to male and female - Intersex people do exist.
Gender is a social concept and describes how one relates to socially “masculine” and “feminine” ideas. Gender is not fixed to sex - people (such as myself) can be born into a particular “sex” but relate to the opposite “gender”. (I was born with a male “sex” but my gender is female. I have undergone surgery to change my sex to closer relate to my gender.) There are also many shades of gender between masculine and feminine. People can and do possess traits from both.

AliciaCL:

You can “marry” and adopt, you can emote about it all you want but the children will suffer just as children of divorce suffer, period.

What, exactly, will children suffer from?

AliciaCL:

You claim the government is imposing a religion on you by not allowing gay marriage. Seriously, this is like the Muslims coming into a country, Brittain, USA, European countries, etc. and demanding that the country submit to their Sharia law because it’s their religious right to have things that way.

No, it’s nothing like that at all. Religion aside, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Allowing a gay couple the same LEGAL marriage benifits as a hetrosexual couple hurts NOBODY. Therefore there is absolutely no reason it should be allowed. But the government disallows it for purely religious reasons. We’re not demanding that hetrosexual catholics get married into homosexual marriages, We have no agenda to ‘force’ anybody to get married or anything like that.
The Sharia argument you use suggests Muslims would be imposing religion on people that do not want it imposed on them - nothing to do with what homosexuals want (but strangely paralell to Catholics imposing their views against homosexuality on homosexuals!)

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have a some confusion on the side of those who say that mothers and distinct role and fathers have distinct roles (or at least that a male and female are necessary to parent). I won’t use rhetorical trickery to try to back you into a corner, I’ll explain my whole thought process right here.

Situation A, mom stays at home, dad works. Mom teaches how to be social, dad teaches how to be independent (I read that somewhere on this topic, I’m thinking it was that article).

Situation B, dad stays at home, mom works. So therefore we must assume dad teaches how to be social, mom teaches how to be independent.

So far, it has be said that either is fine and not confusing to the child, as long as there is both a mother and a father.

Looking at both, we see that fathers are capable of both, as well as mothers. Why then, is it necessary to have both a father and a mother when one father could teach independence (situation A) and on father could teach social skills (situation B)?

Your response does not address the argument. Once again, listen carefully:

(1) Roles are not genders. Constructs such as “masculine” ROLES and “feminine” ROLES have some degrees of fluctuation, based partly as they are on cultural expectations. But role does not equal gender. It is on a different plane than gender, and therefore not interchangeable with it.

(2) Perception cannot alter biology. Perception (particularly mental, as opposed to sensory) is variable, complex, and ultimately, not measurable. Perception belongs to the category of subjectivity; biology belongs to the category of objectivity, whether that perception originates from the self or from outside the self. The most “feminized” male (in aspect, behavior, and even self-perception) is not a woman. The most “masculinized” female is not a man.

(3) Further than all of that, there are aspects of gender that are beyond EITHER role or perception. The core essentials of gender (essentials that are not subject to change and manipulation) reside in the area of the psyche and the spirit.

(4) Ultimately, gender proceeds from God, being aspects of God’s differentiation and a mirror of complementary, dynamic, differentiated love: a model of God’s very completeness, wholeness. Love (sexual and non-) between a male and a female has a different character to it than love between two people of the same gender.

(5) Being an extension of God himself, the relationship between the sexes belongs to the realm of the sacred, and is a sacred gift. The disregard for that gift, and the deliberate withholding of that gift from anyone’s childhood, are profanations of the modern First World, ranking as they do with the profanation of the artificial creation of life.

 

[Sheena_Hartgill]

If gay couples cannot have their rights as a couple recognized by the state they should outlaw homosexuality again. This is what it comes down to in the end. If they are not willing to do that (boy i’d like to see them try) then they should be willing to recognises gay life partners in the same was as hertosexual life partners.

The governments can’t have their cake and eat it.

I totally agree, we will not lose ground. it may take a long time to bring the masses round but people are changing and understanding is growing we need only keep up the good fight. Here in South Africa the law is changed and if the church dosn’t want to be left behind it needs to keep up. Even as we have managed to remove Apartheid from the law we need to have onging interaction with others to remove it from peoples hearts even in the church. I feel that it is the same in the homosexuality issue. I dont believe that anyone who has had a loving (all kinds of love - family and friends) with a Homosexual can really be anti and hostile

 

[NoMoreGames]

A democratic state or country is a sovereign. They DO have the inherent right to decide whether the state should endorse gay marriage. They’ve also decided no multiple marriages or marriages to children, which are allowed in other non-Christian societies. The USA’s declaration of independence and the Constitution – like it or not – incorporate some fundamental Christian concepts; these docs were inspried by Christians. Those underpinnings are still present. The majority opposes gay marriage and they do so as a derivative of Christian philosophy incorpoarted into this country.**

the “christian” values that includes are the values that are universal to humanity (essentially treat other well) that also are part of Christian teaching. In that way it is inspired by Christians, but the values are not exclusively Christian. Most of the founding fathers were deists, hardly Christians. And no kidding that the public has control over gay marriage, that’s what this is about. My question implied that people prohibited it on a state level because of their personal religious beliefs, with makes it more of a theocracy than a democracy (when it’s actually a republic, Article IV, section 4)
AliciaCL;4838631:

I’m still waiting to hear the cogent argument why gay conduct is moral. There isn’t one. It’s just you like it, you want it, therefore the public should support it. You don’t decide what rights you have. The people decide what “rights” there are. They have clearly decided they do not support gay marriage.

I’m still waiting to hear the cogent argument why gay marriage would be a negative attribute to our society, considering other nations have it any their structure it totally fine. (if by conduct you mean promiscuity and a lack or respect by gay rights activists, I’m not trying to clam that as moral) As far as the people not supporting it, Obama, while he isn’t calling it marriage, he does have plans for gay unions. He did after all win an election, so it seems the people have decided indeed.

A gay couple can love a child and provide like anyone else. But they can never, never, never provide the example of motherhood AND fatherhood, the fundamental building blocks of a society. They necessarily give their children a human deficit. You can’t alter your gender, change DNA. Sorry, you are mad at nature but it simply cannot be. You can “marry” and adopt, you can emote about it all you want but the children will suffer just as children of divorce suffer, period. It hurts the whole society.

So, even if both roles are filled (and the argument seems to have been about the roles of parents; see my previous post) just because they aren’t opposite genders doesn’t mean they will not make good parents. Your logic that motherhood and father hood are the only things that will work is like saying a woman will never have the ability to be a strong president just because there have always been male presidents in the past, it’s non sequitur. And no one is claiming to be mad at nature. And I still don’t understand how the children will suffer.

Back to the ultimate issue. You claim the government is imposing a religion on you by not allowing gay marriage. Seriously, this is like the Muslims coming into a country, Brittain, USA, European countries, etc. and demanding that the country submit to their Sharia law because it’s their religious right to have things that way. Doesn’t matter that women could get civil divorces under the country’s law; sharia law would impose its own separate hurdles. That is government imposed discrimination which our system doesn’t go for. People in Europe are beginning to sucker for this kind of argument because its been so harped upon. It doesn’t make it any less erroneous and detrimental to society.

This is really confusing. You’re first statement is correct, and then you provide an applicable analogy. You make the statement that people don’t go for governmental imposed discrimination (which is true) but then call it faulty logic? Would you be able to explain this in a different was, you seem to shift views?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Your response does not address the argument. Once again, listen carefully:

(1) Roles are not genders. Constructs such as “masculine” ROLES and “feminine” ROLES have some degrees of fluctuation, based partly as they are on cultural expectations. But role does not equal gender. It is on a different plane than gender, and therefore not interchangeable with it.

(2) Perception cannot alter biology. Perception (particularly mental, as opposed to sensory) is variable, complex, and ultimately, not measurable. Perception belongs to the category of subjectivity; biology belongs to the category of objectivity, whether that perception originates from the self or from outside the self. The most “feminized” male (in aspect, behavior, and even self-perception) is not a woman. The most “masculinized” female is not a man.

(3) Further than all of that, there are aspects of gender that are beyond EITHER role or perception. The core essentials of gender (essentials that are not subject to change and manipulation) reside in the area of the psyche and the spirit.

(4) Ultimately, gender proceeds from God, being aspects of God’s differentiation and a mirror of complementary, dynamic, differentiated love: a model of God’s very completeness, wholeness. Love (sexual and non-) between a male and a female has a different character to it than love between two people of the same gender.

(5) Being an extension of God himself, the relationship between the sexes belongs to the realm of the sacred, and is a sacred gift. The disregard for that gift, and the deliberate withholding of that gift from anyone’s childhood, are profanations of the modern First World, ranking as they do with the profanation of the artificial creation of life.

I don’t think you understand the topic. Listen carefully: You are using religious ideas (5&6) as a means to tell people that may not even believe in those statements they can not get married. This was about governmental/social reasons, yet you insist on bringing up religious values.

On point 1, i understand that roles and physical gender are not the same thing. My questions was why there has to be male and female (even of both roles, which you ever stated can be changed,) to raise a child. as stated in point 3 as well, i know there are fundamental, unchangeable differences between the genders, but why do both have to be present? You have not answered this question without religious beliefs.

On point 4, no kidding love is going to be different between them. not all heterosexual love is the same. I’d argue that no heterosexual love is the same. You will never find two of the exact same relationship. And individual has different forms of love for their spouse than they do their best friend, but does than mean one love is greater than another?

I don’t understand how gay parenting would make it not first world (don’t involve religious beliefs in the answer). If you’re saying that artificially creating life is not first world, it seems that only first world nations are capable of this, so I don’t understand.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are using religious ideas (5&6) as a means to tell people that may not even believe in those statements they can not get married. This was about governmental/social reasons, yet you insist on bringing up religious values.

On point 1, i understand that roles and physical gender are not the same thing. My questions was why there has to be male and female (even of both roles, which you ever stated can be changed,) to raise a child. as stated in point 3 as well, i know there are fundamental, unchangeable differences between the genders, but why do both have to be present? You have not answered this question without religious beliefs.

On point 4, no kidding love is going to be different between them. not all heterosexual love is the same. I’d argue that no heterosexual love is the same. You will never find two of the exact same relationship. And individual has different forms of love for their spouse than they do their best friend, but does than mean one love is greater than another?

I don’t understand how gay parenting would make it not first world (don’t involve religious beliefs in the answer). If you’re saying that artificially creating life is not first world, it seems that only first world nations are capable of this, so I don’t understand.

You are truly not following this topic with consistent logic. (But several other posters also conflate ideas; you just do it more than they do.) We are not talking about the uniqueness of an individual generic relationship. We are talking about two radically different kinds of relationships. Same-gender love cannot be compared with different-gender love. Totally different sets of expectations, communication, physiology, psychology, and more.

Yes, you said it yourself: clearly you don’t understand, but your misunderstandings do not thereby increase your accuracy. They impede your accuracy. I never said that artificial life is NOT first world; I said the opposite. You seem to need to re-read the arguments.

And to the contrary, I have indeed answered the questions raised both with AND without religious arguments. Without religious
argumentation/basis, the primacy of male + female in the family unit still holds. You’ll just have to reread it. Not going to repeat myself.

You have convinced yourself that all styles of relationships, regardless of gender, are on an equal plane and to be evaluated and valued by identical standards. That is the entire fallacy. But you folks like to propagandize that point at every opportunity.

It is not that gay relationships are “bad.” But they are different in their very character, as a category, from heterosexual relationships, as a category. (And will always be, by their (biological!) nature.

Most people have never had a formal course in logic. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the discussion of the mythical “equality” of gay and straight marriage, gay and straight parenting.

 

[magdelaine]

You know, NoMoreGames,

I think you would benefit from grappling with the very logical arguments on the nature of homosexual vs. heterosexual relations and the nature of marriage by two devout, obedient, and Catholic homosexuals. They have managed to embrace their sexuality while conforming themselves to Church teaching on homosexuality and they strive to live a chaste life. Plus, they are great writers!

What Homosexuals Want by Eve Tushnet
More by Eve

Gay Marriage Debate by John Heard

Leave Wedded Bliss to Those Who Can Make Babies by John Heard

John and Eve have both written extensively on this subject, but John’s writings are a little harder to find without searching through his blog. It’s worth it to do so, however.

Blessings!

 

[wanner47]

I don’t think you understand the topic. Listen carefully: You are using religious ideas (5&6) as a means to tell people that may not even believe in those statements they can not get married. This was about governmental/social reasons, yet you insist on bringing up religious values.

On point 1, i understand that roles and physical gender are not the same thing. My questions was why there has to be male and female (even of both roles, which you ever stated can be changed,) to raise a child. as stated in point 3 as well, i know there are fundamental, unchangeable differences between the genders, but why do both have to be present? You have not answered this question without religious beliefs.

On point 4, no kidding love is going to be different between them. not all heterosexual love is the same. I’d argue that no heterosexual love is the same. You will never find two of the exact same relationship. And individual has different forms of love for their spouse than they do their best friend, but does than mean one love is greater than another?

I don’t understand how gay parenting would make it not first world (don’t involve religious beliefs in the answer). If you’re saying that artificially creating life is not first world, it seems that only first world nations are capable of this, so I don’t understand.

Perhaps this article might enlighten you as to why, for example, it might be dangerous to a male child to be raised by two lesbians.

bighollywood.breitbart.com/bhamer/2009/02/17/single-moms-and-nambla-by-bob-hamer/

Bob Hamer, an FBI agent, worked undercover in NAMBLA for three years. His article concludes,

Based upon my three year affiliation with these child molesters, I observed one thing: Not one boy who came from a home with a strong, loving father figure was successfully targeted by a persuasion predator.

Protection may be that simple…a boy needs a loving father.

 

[AngelAshley]

Elizabeth502:

Same-gender love cannot be compared with different-gender love.

Why not? Explain the differences in “Expectations, communication, physiology”, etc. (What physiology has to do with love I -don’t- know…!

Obviously, gay relationships are slightly different from hetrosexual relationships - in one the partners are of the same sex, in the other the partners are of opposite sex. But it doesn’t go beyound that. Love is love is love. If two people love each other, a relationship exists. Why should sexual differences have any bearing on anything outside of the bedroom?

wanner47:

Perhaps this article might enlighten you as to why, for example, it might be dangerous to a male child to be raised by two lesbians.

Interesting article but you can’t pin it on lesbians. “They targeted the lonely, the emotionally empty, the hurting boy”. There is no link to “emotionally empty” children and lesbian relationships. There’s nothing to say that lesbians can’t provide a father fiqure. There’s probably a whole host of other factors involved as to why these kids are “hurting”.

And besides, what does this have to do with marriage, which is the topic of discussion? We already know that having babies is not a prerequisite to marriage.

 

[wanner47]

Interesting article but you can’t pin it on lesbians. “They targeted the lonely, the emotionally empty, the hurting boy”. There is no link to “emotionally empty” children and lesbian relationships. There’s nothing to say that lesbians can’t provide a father fiqure. There’s probably a whole host of other factors involved as to why these kids are “hurting”.

Okay, Ashley, look at this statement.

There’s nothing to say that lesbians can’t provide a father figure

Lesbians, by definition, are women. Fathers, by definition, are men. Women aren’t men, and never can be. Therefore, women aren’t fathers, and never can be.

A male child being raised by two lesbians – i.e., two women – most likely does not have his biological father in his life, and most likely does not have a strong male role model. Thus, he is an easier target for persuasion predators.

And besides, what does this have to do with marriage, which is the topic of discussion? We already know that having babies is not a prerequisite to marriage.

I was responding to NMG’s questions regarding why it’s important to have opposite-sex parents.

 

[AngelAshley]

wanner47:

Lesbians, by definition, are women. Fathers, by definition, are men. Women aren’t men, and never can be. Therefore, women aren’t fathers, and never can be.

By saying “Womem” and “Men” are you talking about biological sex or social gender? Assuming you’re talking about gender, (which must be the case since being a “father figure” is a social concept) then yes, (Biological) Women can be (Socially) Men. Which means that yes, “women” can be “fathers” in a sense (in the sence that matters, to be exact… the social one!)

You seem to be confused between “Sex” and “Gender”. There’s no difinitive link between the two. I am living testament to that.

 

[NoMoreGames]

There’s nothing to say that lesbians can’t provide a father figure

Lesbians, by definition, are women. Fathers, by definition, are men. Women aren’t men, and never can be. Therefore, women aren’t fathers, and never can be.

You are absolutely right in saying that women can never be men. But the statement does not say “There’s nothing to say that lesbians can’t be a physical father.” It says “father figure.” I posted a long rant abour roles vs physical gender. It still hasn’t been explained why the physical father is necessary if there is a father figure. If the article answers that I apologize as i haven’t read it yet (but don’t worry, I will ). I won’t get a chance to check out everyone’s suggested reading until later tonight, but thanks for your suggestions

 

[wanner47]

By saying “Womem” and “Men” are you talking about biological sex or social gender? Assuming you’re talking about gender, (which must be the case since being a “father figure” is a social concept) then yes, (Biological) Women can be (Socially) Men. Which means that yes, “women” can be “fathers” in a sense (in the sence that matters, to be exact… the social one!)

You seem to be confused between “Sex” and “Gender”. There’s no difinitive link between the two. I am living testament to that.

You are not a living testament to anything; most likely, you’re an exception to the rule. There are rare individuals who are in a transgendered situation and may have confusion about their gender role, but far and above men and women have complimentary gender roles, which makes a committed and stable man/woman relationship the optimal environment for raising children.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are absolutely right in saying that women can never be men. But the statement does not say “There’s nothing to say that lesbians can’t be a physical father.” It says “father figure.” I posted a long rant abour roles vs physical gender. It still hasn’t been explained why the physical father is necessary if there is a father figure. If the article answers that I apologize as i haven’t read it yet (but don’t worry, I will ). I won’t get a chance to check out everyone’s suggested reading until later tonight, but thanks for your suggestions

Very simply: because father figures are not fathers. Children deserve actual fathers, actual mothers. Can they cope, survive, manage without them? Sure. Orphans have, for centuries. Same for children from broken homes. But that is very different from the government institutionalizing, approving, promoting the EQUALITY of father and mother “figures” in relation to the real thing. For a host of reasons that many of us have enumerated, this is a very bad idea.

 

[royal_archer]

Those choices are not the only choices in this nation. You don’t seem to grasp the concept of the difference between social and economic. Social: gay marraige. Economic: welfare. Social issues are beliefs, ususally steping from religion vs. no religion debates. In this case, the majority should not be able to force their beliefs. Economic issues are governmental in nature and exist only in law. In this case, it is not about forcing beliefs, but passing laws.

The only other option would be hypocracy. You appear to believe that the will of the majority only applies on specific issues that I guess only you get to choose.

As much as I’ve been called “nothing more than a typical liberal,” and a leftist, I’m conservative on most social issues (MOST, not all, obviously) and liberal on economic views (this isn’t about me, just showing that it is indeed possible). One could just as easily be liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones. Laws are different from beliefs. Economic is different from social.

This is not about you but we are trying to help you understand.
We have explained this on three different levels. Moral, legal rights, and ethical in all cases we have shown that it is wrong for you to try to force your lifestyle on a society which finds it offensive.

and you still didn’t answer my question

Your question was less than coherant. but I will try to reitterate my possition for clarity. As it relates to gay unions:

1. What you do in private is immoral but asside from providing warnings we can not prevent you from engaging in that behavior.
2. You do not have the right to act in a leud manner in public or in a way that is blatantly offensive or disgusting.
3. I have every right to deny services or association with any one for any reason. You do not have the right to override my decision because of any personal status on your behalf.
4. I have a moral obligation to treat you the same as others but not if it will cause physical, emotional, or spiritual harm to others.
5. You do not have the right to mock us or offend us or insult us by taking our sacrements and associating them with your deviant behavior.
6. I have no more right to force you to follow my morality than you have to force me to follow yours. However, if you insist on forcing your view of morality on others, then you have volunteered to accept that we will return the like treatment and force our morality on you. If you don’t like it work for freedom for all, not just freedom to engage in your own private desires.

 

[royal_archer]

I have a some confusion on the side of those who say that mothers and distinct role and fathers have distinct roles (or at least that a male and female are necessary to parent). I won’t use rhetorical trickery to try to back you into a corner, I’ll explain my whole thought process right here.

Situation A, mom stays at home, dad works. Mom teaches how to be social, dad teaches how to be independent (I read that somewhere on this topic, I’m thinking it was that article).

Situation B, dad stays at home, mom works. So therefore we must assume dad teaches how to be social, mom teaches how to be independent.

So far, it has be said that either is fine and not confusing to the child, as long as there is both a mother and a father.

Looking at both, we see that fathers are capable of both, as well as mothers. Why then, is it necessary to have both a father and a mother when one father could teach independence (situation A) and on father could teach social skills (situation B)?

And what is the child to do when they want fatherly advice on dating (motherly advice for girls)? It is the parrents role to teach kids how to interact in society. Most people in the world take on the traditional gender roles if a child is raised around distorted gender roles how are they going to react in the real world?