Member of gay community: children need both a dad and a mom

[P@triot]

You must have missed this question, since I never saw your response.

Well, the question doesn't make much sense in the context of the entire conversation. Since I'm not a liberal though, allow me to be very clear on this:

No, I do not believe that a child should be taken away from a gay couple who is taking quality care of the child.

However, being that you are a liberal, you're trying to change the issue rather than have an honest conversation. The issue here is, is it in the best interest of a child to be placed in the care of a gay couple to begin with? The gay individual in this article believes it is not. I tend to agree with him.

You liberals tend to be mother-nature worshipping tree-huggers. Why do you think two women or two men are incapable of breeding? Because it is unnatural. Are a gay couple capable of doing a quality job of providing care for a child. Absolutely. No rational person would ever argue otherwise. But it is the ideal situation for a child? Absolutely not. You cannot overstate the importance of having one man married to one woman in a healthy relationship to raise children.

Which is more ideal for the child.

Letting that child remain in foster care or an orphanage or having a gay couple adopt that child?

Well obviously that would depend on the situation. If the foster care is beating the child and the gay couple would provide quality care, then the gay couple. However, if the foster care is a loving family providing quality care for the child, then the foster care.

But you used the word "ideal" - and it is never "ideal" for a child to be in a gay home (just as it's never ideal for a child to come from a broken home). Ideal is both a man and a woman happily married in a loving home.

 

[poet]

Well, the question doesn't make much sense in the context of the entire conversation. Since I'm not a liberal though, allow me to be very clear on this:

No, I do not believe that a child should be taken away from a gay couple who is taking quality care of the child.

However, being that you are a liberal, you're trying to change the issue rather than have an honest conversation. The issue here is, is it in the best interest of a child to be placed in the care of a gay couple to begin with? The gay individual in this article believes it is not. I tend to agree with him.

You liberals tend to be mother-nature worshipping tree-huggers. Why do you think two women or two men are incapable of breeding? Because it is unnatural. Are a gay couple capable of doing a quality job of providing care for a child. Absolutely. No rational person would ever argue otherwise. But it is the ideal situation for a child? Absolutely not. You cannot overstate the importance of having one man married to one woman in a healthy relationship to raise children.

Which is more ideal for the child.

Letting that child remain in foster care or an orphanage or having a gay couple adopt that child?

Well obviously that would depend on the situation. If the foster care is beating the child and the gay couple would provide quality care, then the gay couple. However, if the foster care is a loving family providing quality care for the child, then the foster care.

But you used the word "ideal" - and it is never "ideal" for a child to be in a gay home (just as it's never ideal for a child to come from a broken home). Ideal is both a man and a woman happily married in a loving home.

BS. How many traditional family homes are abusive? Tons. What is ideal is a loving, caring home, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[Montrovant]

Where is the money coming from to pay these neglectful parents? Seeing as in your scenario, they are prisoners, wouldn't it be taxpayer money which would pay the inmate parents? So, would that mean you are advocating taking other people's money at the point of a gun to pay for the children of irresponsible parents?

Wow... I seriously can't believe I have to explain this to an adult.

We have these things called "taxes" (this is money taken against the will of the people by the government for various government expenses). These "taxes" at the local level have been used to pay for the repair of roads. These "taxes" are also used to pay for a host of government child services (orphanages, foster care, healthcare, etc.).

Now, if we take the taxes we use to pay private corporations to repair those roads and we SAVE that money by having free labor (see, we're not actually paying them ), we can use it for the cost of caring for their children.

God help us....

I apologize if I got you mixed up with some of our libertarian-leaning posters who have equated taxes to having your property taken at the point of a gun. When you used the phrase I probably assumed that you also fall into that camp, and I shouldn't make those kinds of assumptions.

That said, you are still advocating having tax money pay for these children. I was under the impression you were opposed to that. Your whole point was that these incarcerated parents would earn a salary which would go toward paying for their children's care. Now, you are saying they will not actually earn a salary, but will use their labor to free up tax money to care for their children. In either case, it is TAX MONEY that will pay for their children, and when you touted how your plan would make it so you wouldn't have to pay for other people's children, it seemed you were talking about taxes.

So which is it? Do you want taxes to pay for other people's children, or not?

 

[California Girl]

The government shouldn't be in the business of telling couples they can't have children. And a two parent household with two moms, or a single parent household with only a dad is far superior than aging out of the foster care system.

When the government uses my money for your kids, sorry but I do have a say. Don't like it, don't spend my money on your kids. Not rocket science.

Fact - traditional families are the best environment to raise well adjusted kids. That's what the research shows.

Fact - having two moms or two dads is not a bad thing.

What does damage society... pretending things are something they are not. So quit doing that.

 

[AmyNation]

The government shouldn't be in the business of telling couples they can't have children. And a two parent household with two moms, or a single parent household with only a dad is far superior than aging out of the foster care system.

When the government uses my money for your kids, sorry but I do have a say. Don't like it, don't spend my money on your kids. Not rocket science.

Fact - traditional families are the best environment to raise well adjusted kids. That's what the research shows.

Fact - having two moms or two dads is not a bad thing.

What does damage society... pretending things are something they are not. So quit doing that.

Who's kids? Kids who age out of foster care? They are nobodies kids, and any family is better then the handshake and the boot they get from the state when they turn 18.

 

[AmyNation]

The government shouldn't be in the business of telling couples they can't have children. And a two parent household with two moms, or a single parent household with only a dad is far superior than aging out of the foster care system.

When the government uses my money for your kids, sorry but I do have a say. Don't like it, don't spend my money on your kids. Not rocket science.

Fact - traditional families are the best environment to raise well adjusted kids. That's what the research shows.

Fact - having two moms or two dads is not a bad thing.

What does damage society... pretending things are something they are not. So quit doing that.

Btw I noticed your straw man.

 

[P@triot]

Where is the money coming from to pay these neglectful parents? Seeing as in your scenario, they are prisoners, wouldn't it be taxpayer money which would pay the inmate parents? So, would that mean you are advocating taking other people's money at the point of a gun to pay for the children of irresponsible parents?

Wow... I seriously can't believe I have to explain this to an adult.

We have these things called "taxes" (this is money taken against the will of the people by the government for various government expenses). These "taxes" at the local level have been used to pay for the repair of roads. These "taxes" are also used to pay for a host of government child services (orphanages, foster care, healthcare, etc.).

Now, if we take the taxes we use to pay private corporations to repair those roads and we SAVE that money by having free labor (see, we're not actually paying them ), we can use it for the cost of caring for their children.

God help us....

I apologize if I got you mixed up with some of our libertarian-leaning posters who have equated taxes to having your property taken at the point of a gun. When you used the phrase I probably assumed that you also fall into that camp, and I shouldn't make those kinds of assumptions.

That said, you are still advocating having tax money pay for these children. I was under the impression you were opposed to that. Your whole point was that these incarcerated parents would earn a salary which would go toward paying for their children's care. Now, you are saying they will not actually earn a salary, but will use their labor to free up tax money to care for their children. In either case, it is TAX MONEY that will pay for their children, and when you touted how your plan would make it so you wouldn't have to pay for other people's children, it seemed you were talking about taxes.

So which is it? Do you want taxes to pay for other people's children, or not?

First, to clarify my position, I am not a libertarian (I despise those sovereign citizen whacko's). I am a die-hard constitutional conservative.

Now, to answer your question, what I'm proposing is that we make ALL criminals (but in this specific thread - negligent parents) cover the costs to society for their children, incarceration, etc. by using them as free labor to save massive tax dollars. I find it hard to believe you could possibly be "confused" on this as clear as I have been. If the tax dollars we would have spent on roads is instead used for the child services programs, then we do not need ANY tax dollars for the child services programs.

Yes, we still pay taxes for roads & bridges (as we should - local taxes) but since the labor is free from prisoners, we take those tax dollars and "pay" those criminals a salary that is then used to cover the costs of caring for their children.

 

[P@triot]

A marriage is indeed a contract, and people make—and break— contracts every day. But as Matthew Spalding explains, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is much more than a mere legal agreement. It’s the key building block of society, and needs to be defended and strengthened.

Redefining Marriage: How Changing the Definition of Marriage Affects the Civil Society

 

[poet]

A marriage is indeed a contract, and people make—and break— contracts every day. But as Matthew Spalding explains, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is much more than a mere legal agreement. It’s the key building block of society, and needs to be defended and strengthened.

Redefining Marriage: How Changing the Definition of Marriage Affects the Civil Society

Bullshit, based on the number of divorces and annulments. How many infidelities? How much spousal abuse? Tell the truth and shame the devil, more likely.

 

[P@triot]

A marriage is indeed a contract, and people make—and break— contracts every day. But as Matthew Spalding explains, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is much more than a mere legal agreement. It’s the key building block of society, and needs to be defended and strengthened.

Redefining Marriage: How Changing the Definition of Marriage Affects the Civil Society

Bullshit, based on the number of divorces and annulments. How many infidelities? How much spousal abuse? Tell the truth and shame the devil, more likely.

Why do you think they specifically cited "strengthened"? Because of the very things you mentioned (infidelity, divorce, abuse, etc.).

 

[Political Junky]

But his own experience as a parent revealed to him that children need a mom and a dad, and that marriage is ultimately about putting the needs of children before the desires of adults.

In a recent article at Public Discourse titled “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage,” Mainwaring makes the bold claim that: "To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness".

Mainwaring is also clear on what influenced his thinking about marriage: “Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.”

Openly Gay Adoptive Parent Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Cons can always find a minority to agree with them.

 

[poet]

A marriage is indeed a contract, and people make—and break— contracts every day. But as Matthew Spalding explains, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is much more than a mere legal agreement. It’s the key building block of society, and needs to be defended and strengthened.

Redefining Marriage: How Changing the Definition of Marriage Affects the Civil Society

Bullshit, based on the number of divorces and annulments. How many infidelities? How much spousal abuse? Tell the truth and shame the devil, more likely.

Why do you think they specifically cited "strengthened"? Because of the very things you mentioned (infidelity, divorce, abuse, etc.).

Are you stupid? Wait...don't answer that. Strengthened? How? By dismissing gay marriage (having nothing to do with your dysfunctional marriage), as "null and void"? Our argument is that gay marriage is also a legal agreement, between two persons, who just happen to be of the same sex. As U.S. Citizens and taxpayers, why should we be denied an obvious right that you have? There is no valid answer. There are a whole bunch of fucked up heterosexuals in dysfunctional marriages....should I just group you in with them, which is what you're doing to me, essentially?