Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
William,
In terms of artificial insemination, I completely disagree with your views:
What are these "good reasons" you speak of? Why shouldn't a woman be given the opportunity to raise a child if she is not physically able to give birth? I hope you're not implying these women cannot be good mothers. I know of two woman that had an abundance of love to give, but were unable to reproduce, and so they adopted. They now lovingly raise two children, and live happier lives because of this. This "pick a child" thing is positive, not negative. Biology does not define "mother", in my opinion. Actions do, and I don't feel we should deprive a woman of her ability to provide care for a child who may not have had an opportunity to be loved otherwise.
And why shouldn't a husband (who cannot impregnate his wife), allow a child into their family? I'd hope the husband would be understanding enough, that, if the woman seeks to become a mother, he allows her to do so. No, not just allow: Support!
In my opinion, the reality we have created, it is close to impossible to understand this "universal bond" simply because so many people are having so many children for all the "wrong" reasons. Sperm banks only add to that.
My heart goes out to those women who want children and can conceive them. It really does and the best solution is to adopt a child that already is, rather than bring another one into this world. If that desire of the woman to have a child were out of love, it wouldn't matter where the child came from.
Furthermore, let me add, it is also my belief, and a firm one it is, that no child, no child should be adopted by any facsimile of what political correctness today is recognizing as a family that is slowly replacing the traditional biological family such as single parent, and those that are homosexual. I know that is politically incorrect, so be it.
This reality is so screwed up that in some parts of the third world women are having children to "sell" so they can survive. That sperm bank is the male equivalent to that.
Hmm; I see how that might be a valid reason.
So are you arguing that excessive masturbation is psychologically damaging?
This is all dogma and no philosophy. Can you arrive at any of these truths reasonably? Or do you just reiterate subscribed-to Church views?
For instance, can you show that children adopted by a gay couple are worse off than those born of a straight couple? Can you demonstrate the effect of a woman who uses a sperk bank on the relationship between another woman and her sexually conceived child? Can you demonstrate the equivilence between a sperm and a born child that makes selling sperm equivilent to selling children?
Can you explain to me why if there's such a special bond between mother and sexually conceived child, why a "barren" (do people really still use that word?) woman should adopt rather than conceive non-sexually? Surely non-sexual conception is closer to sexual conception than adoption, and so surely the non-sexually conceiving woman will feel that special bond more than an adopting woman!
These are my belief's... The onus is on you to prove me wrong, and if you do, then by all means I will amend my belief's.
Personally I am not concerned if you wish to call it "dogma"or what, it is my truth and I sleep really good at night believing the way I do.
IMO, there is no way in hell a child will get the balance they need in a homosexual home or a single parent home or a home where there are no biological connections.
I have made my position perfectly on feminism, homosexuality and the child and I will not be swayed unless you can provide ME, with a truth otherwise.
As far as non-sexual conception vs. sexual conception is a moot point as far as I am concerned considering all the "real children" in the world who need homes.
Bones,
I have explained it as far as I am concerned. Just not to your satisfaction. Sorry.
William
If anyone is interested, I can also start a new thread, since this was kind of hijacked from Greg's intentions. Let me know what it is called, and which posts I should move on over and I can take care of it. It is my duty as a moderator to help out with such situations.
Other than that, I think we killed this masturbation thread by coming to the general conclusion that it is a non-moral act; therefore, it cannot be immoral.
It seems we don't need Mom or Dad anymore and any combination of adults will do. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the child? What do you think?
Research shows, by and large, the predominant market is of the gay variety, who for natural reasons cannot have children the old universal, or traditional way. Yet, their innate need to foster children seems a bit lopsided since they are not in favor of adopting homeless children. Why?
I don't think anyone is saying any combination of adults will do. Clearly, it depends who these adults are. But, no, I don't believe the equation for a loving family is necessitated by the combination of adults being male-female. A female-female, male-male couple could provide the same love and care.
Why are we to assume otherwise?
1. How is balance evaluated - what is it?
Every psyche has both male and female qualities available to them, and normally chooses one or the other to exhibit most of the time. For instance, one partner can be the stronger of the two emotionally, but may under certain conditions break down and need to rely on support from the other, who although they are not generally thought of as the strongest of the two, would be able to step in and take over long enough for the other to regain his equilibrium.
I think parents or caretakers of a child need to be able to provide working examples of all the qualities a human being can possess, even the negative ones, because they cant be removed, in order to teach their children how to deal with them within their own makeup and when confronted by others.
3. How do unbalanced children then come from heterosexual families who seriously considered having family (or do you suppose all children born of such heterosexual couples are always balanced)?
Most people I have seen are not fit to raise children no matter what sex they are. Where our instinct has gone I dont know, but the human race needs to really get this in order. We need to straighten ourselves out first before messing up our kids.
4. What do homosexuals lack such that this balance is not provided?
Homosexuals lack in general validation by society that their chosen way of life is ok. They are subject to prejudices and discriminations in life as are people who marry outside their race or even religion. It is automatically putting a disadvantage on a child to live in a family that is considered by most people to be unacceptable.
5. What are the facts supporting this - i.e. what evidence do we have that children of homosexual couples are less balanced than children of heterosexual ones?
i am going to leave this one alone. I am sure there are studies, just like there are about single parent homes and poor vs middle class homes. But I dont have much faith in statistics because I know they can be put together in such a way as to support opposite points of view. They can be manipulated.
IMO, it is a breeding ground for instilling homosexual philosophies.
And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
If there is any substantiating proof please bring it to my attention.
I have seen studies depicting a "healthy state", and I have to ask what state is that; a homosexual state or a heterosexual state. IMO, it is a breeding ground for instilling homosexual philosophies.
This is the Ideal Family, and none other: