Putting a Child's Needs Over Adults' Desires is Not Discrimination

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
“Before the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Kay Faust, who was raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, wrote an emotional plea to Justice Kennedy explaining why redefining marriage would harm children. She serves on the Academic and Testimonial Council of the International Children’s Rights Institute, and founded the site Them Before Us. “We are ordinary people willing to state the cost that children, as well as society, pay when children are deprived of their fundamental needs,” Faust said about her site.”

ncregister.com/blog/armstrong/putting-a-childs-needs-over-an-adults-desires-is-not-discrimination
 
What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.
 
Oh great. More anecdotal “evidence”.

I suppose all those screwed up kids (and there are many) who were raised by M+F couples should petition courts to prohibit heterosexual marriages coz they got burned. 😃

And the “source” mentioned in the articles is dubious as hell (Catholic (yeah right)“research”) and contrary to ~ 100 studies including pretty large ones and the official stance of the largest psychological organizations

thinkprogress.org/conservatives-seize-on-hugely-flawed-study-about-same-sex-parents-bd797734bf40
Sullins notes that many of the children had a biological connection to one of the same-sex parents, but it’s unknown if these are from prior relationships, which would suggest their negative outcomes are related to a broken home instead of having two parents of the same sex. Regnerus used the same conflation; only two of the children in his study were actually raised from birth by same-sex couples and they did not exhibit the same negative outcomes as those children who had parents that separated before one entered a same-sex relationship. Incidentally, Sullins has likewise defended Regenerus’ conclusions about the supposed inferiority “gay and lesbian families,” ignoring the significance of this flawed conflation.
Click to expand...
Regnerus notes that another analysis of the same NHIS data found “that children in same-sex families are quite similar to children in married couple families,” but he argues that what matters is “how scholars present and interpret the data.” He proceeds to admit that one of the ways to make children “appear to fare fine (if not better)” with same-sex parents is to control for factors like relationship instability and residential instability. Indeed, the only way that he got his negative results was to not control for the fact that most of the children in his study experienced relationship instability before one of their parents entered a same-sex relationship
Click to expand...
As a vehicle for opposing same-sex marriage, the study severely lacks integrity, as its political positions don’t jibe with its data. “Biology matters,” Regnerus asserts, and Sullins emphasizes that his study identifies “the importance of common biological parentage for optimum child well-being.” Nowhere, however, does Sullins or Regnerus suggest that this has any policy implications for adoption or foster care by different-sex couples. It might be a hard case to make given Sullins has two adopted children of his own
Click to expand...
As Regnerus himself pointed out, when researchers don’t conflate same-sex families with unstable homes, the results are positive.
Click to expand...
Pathetic.

Regenerus #2 who defended the original Regenerus. When these clowns are going to stop?:mad:
 
Yeah, I’ve known A LOT of gay, lesbian, and every other letter in that soup over the years. I even lived as a lesbian for about ten years.

As human beings, members of the LGB… community are very much like their heterosexual peers – mature or immature, mentally healthy or mentally ill, altruistic or selfish, deist or agnostic or atheist…

It would sure be convenient for us Catholics if we could back up every one of our Church’s teachings with all manner of scientific and historical research. But then there really wouldn’t be any element of faith, would there?

Articles like this, in which the author is pathetically grasping at straws and relying on specious data, just make the Church (and us as individual Catholics) just look ignorant, foolish, and desperate.

The Church believes and teaches what it believes and teaches. The reasoning behind these teachings is what should be taught, not this sort of self-serving research.
 
Bradski said:
What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.
Click to expand...
I suggest that your question oversimplifies the issue.

Edit: And not having read the article I offer no opinion on the validity of its contents. My comment is solely concerning Bradski’s question.
 
Thanks for the link.

The Catholic Church is spot on with its teachings. God forbid you might be against the “agenda” that gay people DESERVE children when they can’t even procreate on t heir own without artificial means because God did not design marriage for two same sex persons.

Of course I must be homophobic. I feel so bad for our children of the future that are placed in these same sex marriage homes and may be exposed to overtly gay culture and how confusing that must be.

How sad.

Mary.
 
Reepicheep said:
I suggest that your question oversimplifies the issue.
Click to expand...
It’s a question that is being asked from what I consider to be a more honest approach. The fact that it might have a more straightforward answer is not a matter of oversimplifying the question.

The question stands on its own merit and needs to be addressed: If a child has one parent of either sex, is the child better or worse off having an extra parent of the same sex?

If you say that the child is better off, then there is nothing more to discuss.

But if you say that the child is worse off, then you consider that adding that same-sex parent makes the situation worse (as opposed to that child simply missing a father or a mother). So let’s have some honesty and discuss what he problem with that parent might be.
 
Bradski said:
What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.
Click to expand...
So you agree that a loving mother and father is better? That they are not equal?

There is tones of research that shows the importance of both a loving mother and father, sometimes this does not always happen, but to intentionally set it up that way with so called ‘marriage equality’ is evil.

How is a daughter supposed to relate to two dads? how is that equivalent to a loving mother and father? and why do people argue this as equal?
 
Bradski said:
What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.
Click to expand...
First of all, comparing the best of one group with the way-less-than-best of another group is a set- up.

Second, bringing another “parent” of the *same *sex into the scenario is not going to result in the complimentarity that children need.

When we are talking about adoption, what we are actually talking about is a set of adults caring fir a child whose own parents are unable to care for him or her. The adults are responsible for the *child, *not for the adults who would like to adopt the child. The adoption agency ought to allow to adopt only the very best parents and not be politically correct about the whole thing.
 
Bradski said:
What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.
Click to expand...
Are these the only options?

There still is the option of having a loving father and mother.
 
Sarcelle said:
Are these the only options?

There still is the option of having a loving father and mother.
Click to expand...
If you don’t understand the concept of hypothetical questions then there is no need to respond.
 
MaryT777 said:
Thanks for the link.

The Catholic Church is spot on with its teachings. God forbid you might be against the “agenda” that gay people DESERVE children when they can’t even procreate on t heir own without artificial means because God did not design marriage for two same sex persons.

Of course I must be homophobic. I feel so bad for our children of the future that are placed in these same sex marriage homes and may be exposed to overtly gay culture and how confusing that must be.

How sad.

Mary.
Click to expand...
That is what’s going on now. That is what is being promoted here and through the media. It is a social engineering experiment targeting kids.

Ed
 
The article says that “Four states allow adoption agencies not to place children with same-sex couples: South Dakota, Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas.” It seems to me that common sense would give first priority to placing children with a married couple consisting of a man and woman, so that the children have the benefit of a mother and a father. Why only four states? I know that Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down in several places because they will not place children with same sex couples. Putting a child’s needs first turns out to be illegal in some or many places.
 
MaryT777 said:
can’t even procreate on t heir own without artificial means
Click to expand...
They sure can take part in the procreation process.

And what’s with that logic? So all other heterosexual people, who indeed can’t be part of the process to bring a child into this world, should be banned from raising children too? 😃
I feel so bad for our children of the future
Click to expand...
Maybe you should take care of** your** children first if you have any.
how confusing that must be.
Click to expand...
No more confusing when Christians tell them how good their invisible and never answering god is and how he is the source of morality and all and then children open up the Bible and read about the… adventures of this god or when they read about the history of Christianity and how people lived and many died (were tortured and persecuted like,yes, gays and many others ) under their rule
How sad
Click to expand...
Indeed.
It is a social engineering experiment
Click to expand...
Religion is the largest social engineering experiment in the world. 😛
 
Bradski said:
It’s a question that is being asked from what I consider to be a more honest approach. The fact that it might have a more straightforward answer is not a matter of oversimplifying the question.

The question stands on its own merit and needs to be addressed: If a child has one parent of either sex, is the child better or worse off having an extra parent of the same sex?

If you say that the child is better off, then there is nothing more to discuss.

But if you say that the child is worse off, then you consider that adding that same-sex parent makes the situation worse (as opposed to that child simply missing a father or a mother). So let’s have some honesty and discuss what he problem with that parent might be.
Click to expand...
I appreciate what you’re saying, Bradski, but what exactly do you mean by ‘better or worse off’?

We have people who are so concerned that a child not be put into a situation where they are ‘badly off’, due to things like poverty, sickness, unhappy single mother ‘trapped’ by pregnancy, that they argue the child is ‘better off’ dead, through abortion.

That view always seemed (to me) to equate ‘well being’ solely with money.

And if money is the sine qua non for well being, then nearly always any ‘two person’ household would theoretically beat a ‘one person’ household earnings wise (leaving out the exceptions of one person income being on the Oprah Winfrey order, as well as the opposite exception of the two person income household where one refused to work at all).

But if well-being is more than simply the ‘comfort’ that comes with a certain degree of financial security, then there’s a lot more to consider as to whether a child is ‘better off’ in a household which is by definition to many people one which is ‘not normal/healthy’.
 
Otar_Mendes said:
They sure can take part in the procreation process.

And what’s with that logic? So all other heterosexual people, who indeed can’t be part of the process to bring a child into this world, should be banned from raising children too? 😃

Maybe you should take care of** your** children first if you have any.

No more confusing when Christians tell them how good their invisible and never answering god is and how he is the source of morality and all and then children open up the Bible and read about the… adventures of this god or when they read about the history of Christianity and how people lived and many died (were tortured and persecuted like,yes, gays and many others ) under their rule

Indeed.

Religion is the largest social engineering experiment in the world. 😛
Click to expand...
I take it you disagree with me. 😃
 
Otar_Mendes said:
No more confusing when Christians tell them how good their invisible and never answering god is and how he is the source of morality and all and then children open up the Bible and read about the… adventures of this god or when they read about the history of Christianity and how people lived and many died (were tortured and persecuted like,yes, gays and many others ) under their rule.

Religion is the largest social engineering experiment in the world. 😛
Click to expand...
Truth is, parenting is ALL about raising your children with your beliefs. To do otherwise would completely lack integrity.

I’m a devout a Catholic, raising my son with the theological and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, its traditions, and so on.

My very good friend is raising her two sons to be “strict” atheists. 😃 She and her husband have taught their boys that science is the end-all and be-all, that religion is more a source of evil than good, and that this life is all there is – deal with it.

Every act of parenting is a “social engineering experiment” and everyone thinks those not doing it their way are doing it wrong. 🤷

And somehow, the experiments go on, and humanity carries on…
 
"Every act of parenting is a “social engineering experiment”’

A bit extreme here. So, do they just throw food and clothing in their general direction to see what happens?

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top