Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:10:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1108 times
|
| |
|
|
> > OK - I'll bite on that one. I would agree that the traditional
> > nuclear family as a good foundation on which to build a stable society.
> > However, I can't see any reason why a family with - say - two gay men
> > at its head shouldn't be equally good, and although you don't say so
> > explicitly, you seem to be implying that you'd regard it as inferior.
>
> First, explain to me how 2 gay men "create" a family. Not possible. Unless, • you
> say, if they adopt. In my perfect world, there would be no children for such
> "couples" to adopt, because orphaned children would be care for by immediate
> family first, and barren hetereos wishing children second. I would say a • hetereo
> couple wanting a child is preferrable to a gay couple wanting a child; if • that's
> considered thinking the latter is inferior, then yes.
I believe I asked you to justify what could be inferior about 2 gay men as the
head of a family unit, not simply to restate the fact that you believed that :)
> > Why? Isn't how people treat each other and members of their families
> > the important thing rather than their sexual orientation?
>
> Yes, but it's more complicated than that. All things being equal, would you
> prefer a hetereo or a gay couple to raise a child?
I can't see any difference - as long as they are raising the child properly.
If I could see a difference I wouldn't have asked you :)
> > > A lot of people do stupid things and their lives are train wrecks. A lot • of
> > people are
> > > unhappy. Christianity offers a way to lead a meaningful life, not judgment • of an empty
> > > one.
> >
> > Whether one agrees with that statement is true, surely you'd have to
> > agree that it can only be relevant if people _choose_ to live
> > according to Christian principles - it's pointless forcing them to
> > do so by enacting laws (eg. anti-gay laws or anti-suicide laws)
> > if they don't agree with those principles.
> > (At least where other people are not being harmed)
>
> I do. And stop calling me Shirley;-)
Uh????
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) Ok, fine. I think a child deserves to have a mother and a father. Doesn't matter how much a man can care for a child, a woman does it differently, in a way a man can't. And vice versa. I guess I never analyzed the reason very closely, it just (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) A joke from the comedy movie "Airplane!"(1). Something along the lines of "Surely, you must be joking!" "No, I'm not. And stop calling me Shirley!" Not exactly what is said, but that is the idea. -- Terry K -- 1. If you haven't seen it, it is (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) OK - I'll bite on that one. I would agree that the traditional nuclear family as a good foundation on which to build a stable society. However, I can't see any reason why a family with - say - two gay men at its head shouldn't be equally good, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
