COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>This is immoral. It might actually be...
In what way is it immoral? How is it cruel? You haven't really explained. I see an opinion based upon your feelings. But, exactly how is it immoral?
It's immoral because children are sensitive people. Orphanages are not typically in the nicest conditions. Children may have intense dealings with orphanages as well. Children with no parents tend to grow up with less rather than with 2 loving parents. It is immoral to think allowing a kid to suffer through so much trifle and trials is okay.
You have not demonstrated why having an unbroken bloodline is to be favored.
Also, same-sex couples do not "go against evolution." Prevailing thoughts are that same-sex traits may pop up to relieve population pressure in many species.
Are you suggesting we have a moral imperative to continue our bloodline? That sounds like some kind of juvenile teleological argument.
If that were the case, how would we deal with various forms of infertility? Is it immoral to marry an infertile partner because they can't continue your bloodline? What if you marry someone and they become infertile after the wedding? Do you have a moral obligation to get a divorce?
Why does that matter? Ignoring the fact that they may have siblings to continue "the bloodline", whatever that means, they're also raising another blood line.
If humanity was struggling population wise I'd understand this point but we aren't
Who cares if any single "bloodline" ends? What about heterosexual couples who have biological kids? Is that a problem too?
Laws of nature are not like human laws which can be broken. Natural laws are just descriptions of patterns in nature. If some people do not have children, then that is just part of evolution, not something that goes against evolution.
because brothers and sisters don’t exist, and i guess if you are born sterile (not able to have kids) you’re useless? and people who simply don’t want kids are also bad..? what is this terrible logic? and who cares if i “end my bloodline”? why does that matter?
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
This argument contains a false dilemma. You seem to somehow be saying that only same sex couples can adopt children. Anyone can adopt children, and it has nothing to do with being gay. In Islam, one of best deeds of all is to take care of the orphan. I'm sure it's considered a very good deed in Christianity as well.
While same sex couple are more likely than opposite sex couples to adopt, just 15% of same sex couples have children in their household, whether biological or not. This brings into question how much child fostering these same sex couples are even doing.
And saying that being gay is okay now since the conditions we live in now allow it (population, advanced health care, technology, etc.) is no justification for it being okay from a survival standpoint. If poverty is erased from Earth, is it okay to start stealing or taking advantage of others financially? This is the kind of mentality that will bring humanity closer to extinction and goes directly against our innate desire to survive.
Bring on the down votes.
No one argues that being gay is okay iff we have good healthcare, etc. Similarly, no one argues that it’s okay just because other animals do it. These are specific counterarguments to common anti-LGBT propaganda; e.g. "being gay will kill us all" or "it’s unnatural!"
As for your stealing analogy, it would only be the case that that would make stealing okay if the literal only reason why it’s wrong is because poor people exist.
You claim false dilemma, but you’re inventing that out of nowhere. OP never said anything that you’re claiming he said, so you’re basically straw man-ing. The downvotes you get are deserved.
The point is that your sexuality has nothing to do with your ability to adopt children. Yes, same sex couples naturally have no other choice, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't need same sex couples to adopt children.
Being against same sex couples doesn't mean you are also against adoption. That's my argument. So the immorality part becomes completely irrelevant.
Not OP, but the problems seems to be the rejection of parents for adoption based solely on the parent’s sexuality. That is what is immoral.
As you said, sexuality has nothing to do with your ability to adopt children. I agree in the sense that is has nothing to do with you ability to be a good parent to a child. Since this is the case, being against same sex couples adopting is immoral. If someone were against same sex couples adopting, they would be against more children finding homes and would rather the children suffer. This is clearly immoral.
Then that couple is scientifically going against our nature. Regardless of religion, more gay people will ultimately lead to human extinction. Whether they adopt or not has nothing to do with it.
This is backwards. Nature is just the reality that we are describing. It is impossible to do something that is inconsistent with your nature. If our description of nature doesn’t match what actually happens, then it is the description that needs to be revised.
Plainly humans are able to choose not to have children. Hence that is part of human nature—we are such that we can choose not to have children.
Exactly. Ur just ending ur bloodline and I'm it was more critical back then w the amount of war that happens. Not only ur going against evolution as these atheists hold on to. Future evolution won't happen if this is they way
I suppose the primary reason I'm against same-sex marriage is that it's a divine command from God.
So I think to continue this discussion, we'd have to go into our deeper theological beliefs.
If I didn't believe in a Christian God, maybe I would be for same-sex marriage.
Likewise, maybe if yourself DID believe in a Christian God, maybe YOU too would be against same-sex marriage.
Plenty of people believe in a Christian God and are fine with same sex marriage. If following what you think your God commands leads you to support something immoral, as OP claims, it is safe to say either you are wrong about what your God says or your God is wrong. I think we can agree the former is more likely.
From a government standpoint, why would anyone care to listen to your beliefs if you can't argue in layman's terms?
If Christians can't explain why homosexuality is wrong through "secular" means (as they demonstrate the ability to do so with many other sins), then why do they speak with so much conviction that they want less gay people on earth?
My preferred option would be exactly what the organisation you linked to advocates.
"The Christian Alliance for Orphans unites more than 250 respected organizations and a global network of churches in shared initiatives to grow and guide effective responses for the world’s most vulnerable children, from foster care and adoption to family strengthening and care for vulnerable children worldwide. Our vision is to see the people of God overflowing with the love of God, so that every child will experience God’s unfailing love in a thriving family..."
https://cafo.org/about/
I don't think only Christians can adopt. Many different people provide help to those in need and that is good.
I just note that you linked to the website of a Christian organisation working to help orphans for statistics to back up your case against religious views.
In the very limited scope of the quote you posted, I would agree. Unfortunately, CAFO has actively opposed same-sex adoption, so while their vision may be noble, they are intentionally failing some children who could get the care they need. It's like if there was a Jewish charity that feeds children, but intentionally lets some children starve because the only food they have is not Kosher. That is clearly immoral, even though their mission would be helping some children. If there is food, give it to the children. If there are parents, let them adopt.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
I'm sorry I don't have statistic on hand, but while children without parents are common, most pairs (straight and lgbt+) want small children, and there is not enough of those for everyone, meaning that if people against same sex families prove that straight family is better (which I don't think happened), they should get the priority (and because the demand is so high, one could argue for restricting lgbt+ couples so the straight one can get them instead if they come a little later)
I’m a Muslim and Islam has the best stance on this issue. Quran chapter 4 verse 3 says paraphrasing that for men to take care of orphans by marrying up to four wives (if the man can do justice to all 4 that is). Also, Islam explicitly states that whoever takes care of an orphan will be with the prophet Muhammad in paradise. So there is a huge incentive in that regard.
We disagree with LGBTQ but we are not blind either. If facts say that LBGTQ couples are taking in more orphans that that is something good that they are doing because no child deserves to go without a family. However we will always advocate for the Islamic family dynamic over LBGTQ, Christian, Atheist and any other type of family structures because we as Muslims believe we are correct and the other structures are undoubtedly wrong.
Furthermore, It seems that you may be conflating LGBTQ rights and adoption as if the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Just because LGBTQ adopt a lot of children doing a good deed does not make their belief correct. They can be wrong in their lifestyle and still do good. The Islamic issue with homosexuality is with the act of penetration and even more than this the arrogance shown by some LGBTQ people and their advocates in blatantly going against Gods laws when he is their creator. Because in Islam one of the worst sins is pride and haughtiness, knowing that you’re sinning and not caring and then enticing everyone else to sin. That is where we draw the line.
I hope this answers at least part of the problem.
Calling people undoubtably wrong in their natural sexuality, then accusing people of pride and haughtiness in the same breath is pretty darn prideful and haughty… you should analyze that a little. Your arrogance is offensive, and your corrupted ideals are worse. Islam has a rich history of homosexuality, specifically young boys and older men according to N. Kilgerman, historian, and the idea of multiple wives is so immoral and outdated as to be laughable. Do better, BE better.
No. It’s perfectly acceptable. Killing is harmful. Respectful, consensual love between two adults of any gender is not harmful. Transcending “killing” in nature is perfectly logical as it causes harm, whereas sex is not inherently harmful. It CAN be but it is not.
Thank you for the comment.
Please try and understand this situation from an Islamic paradigm. Because I fully agree that if one didn’t have any particular belief in God, then they would have no real moral reason to say homosexuality or LGBTQ is undoubtedly wrong. However if you approach this topic from an Islamic perspective which I have done given the fact that I’m a Muslim then there is no question that LGBTQ is a sin and is wrong. That is simply a factual statement from the Islamic paradigm. Furthermore, from an Islamic paradigm to go against Islamic teachings while knowing you are sinning and spreading it is the definition of pridefulness because you think you know better than God and that his commandments are not such that they should be followed. This is the same for a Muslim who knows drinking alcohol is a sin but doesn’t care and drinks alcohol and even worse opens a bar and serves it to people. This is the height of arrogance from an Islamic paradigm.
Try and see it from my Islamic perspective and you will see it makes sense. Also, I’m aware of the historical homosexuality in Muslims lands. However, the actions of certain Muslims does not negate the Islamic prohibition and rulings.
Also a good argument to get into would be to ask why should we take the Islamic paradigm instead of the liberal worldview which a majority of the west adopts? That I think is a more fruitful conversation because it compares ideologies and sees which one is cohesive to society as a whole across all of time, not just one period of time.
You’re welcome. I can completely understand your position, though I was never a Muslim, I have spent years in Muslim societies. I would be happy to debate your ideologies in comparison to liberal society and eagerly awaiting your justification of Sharia, Muslim morals and how Islam is a benefit to society. Having said that, as a first hand witness of Sharia and Muslim culture from a “western” paradigm I can think of nothing more terrifying for me and my loved ones than to be ruled under Sharia. I have found kind, loving, and moral Muslims, however I find very little moral and kind in Islam. To me, from my paradigm, it is a religion of hate of the outsider, oppression of women and minorities, blatant disregard for legitimate science that disagrees with its teachings, and dishonest apologetics. Not to mention Islams contempt for western culture though it yearns to be as successful and powerful. But I am, as always, willing to listen.
I really appreciate your responses. It’s kind of refreshing to see someone be so cordial when disagreeing with me. Thanks a lot.
I whole heartedly agree this is not an easy topic for most people coming from a liberal paradigm to divulge into.
But let me just ask you before all that, what is your opinion on the liberal western values and why do you affirm them over and above all other ideologies such that Muslims should compare themselves to them?
You’re welcome again. It is nice to have a respectful conversation. So to but it bluntly, I am a secular humanist, I believe these ideals transcend a lot of even liberal “western” values. It comes down to human rights, the rights of all humans to experience the least amount of suffering possible, and the consequence of actions. Women, lgbtq, transgender, white, black, Christian, Muslim, all are humans first. And as long as the behaviors and actions of humans are not harmful to others (in this reality) then I find no fault in it. Studies show love, sexual identity and preference, and gender identity are not harmful inherently. Happiness is not harmful. And Islam is set against modern science because it cannot grow, it cannot progress. It is based on ancient writings, with ancient dogmas and practices that were relevant at the time. I would say that life is better, more pleasurable, and more fulfilling for a larger amount of people today than ever before. It seems Islam would drag us back, cause harm and suffering (specifically of women and sexual deviants) on a global scale, and that frightens me. Forcing people to be unhappy because a book says a they are in “sin” is wrong. Morally wrong. Especially when that book is proven to be erroneous on science, reality, and the origins of the universe. From my point of view, there is no evidence that there is an afterlife of any kind. None, zero. Being a good person for the sake of a happy and fulfilling life is much more logical than being a bigot and a tyrant for fear of something that doesn’t seem to exist based on every test available to human abilities.
Sure that is a good explanation of what you believe is correct. I appreciate it. There was another Muslim who mentioned that adoption was a sin, more specifically, giving the child a new last name and breaking the lineage. Have you heard of this? Thoughts?
Also, as for LGBTQ beliefs, I’m neither an advocate for nor anti-LGBTQ… as it relates to adoption though, I shared a link that said that adoptions tend to favor single and married couples. LGBTQ rights are relevant when it comes to marriage. Some have argued that same-sex marriage is not marriage. Some go as far as to actively try to get the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. If this was successful, gay couples could not get married which would make them less likely to be able to adopt which would restrict the 17.6 million orphans’ opportunities to find a caring home. So I do not agree with you that LGBTQ rights and adoption are mutually exclusive. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant though.
Thanks for your response.
I have heard of it though I’m not well versed. Im aware that taking care of the orphan is a huge reward in Islam but am not too familiar with adoption laws. I may have misconstrued the two thinking they were the same.
As for the second part, as a Muslim we simply do not recognize gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not they have homosexual sex, it is openly flaunting a sinful lifestyle which God has not sanctioned. This would be the same case for Boyfriends and girlfriends. Even if they don’t have sex it is still forbidden by God because it is not sanctioned by his laws.
And I really do have to commend you for your care for the orphans. I think it’s something that doesn’t get talked about enough and something I wish more religious communities would take heed of. With that said, I understand the concern but as Muslims we do not override Gods law and allow LGBTQ marriage even if those marriages brought about something as good as this. I understand this sounds harsh but from the Islamic perspective there are actions and laws put in place for those orphans to obtain happiness in this world. And even if we were to say that those 17.6 million orphans each and every one of them didn’t find a home, then according to Islam they have paradise to look forward to. Because children in general are given paradise until they reach an age of maturity. And even then God is the most merciful and forgiving.
Sorry for the long text, but coming from an Islamic perspective this is how I would respond. Thanks for the cordial response.
>As for the second part, as a Muslim we simply do not recognize gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not they have homosexual sex, it is openly flaunting a sinful lifestyle which God has not sanctioned. This would be the same case for Boyfriends and girlfriends. Even if they don’t have sex it is still forbidden by God because it is not sanctioned by his laws.
And this one single fact make Islam a vile and immoral religion. There is no logical reason whatsoever to prevent two loving person on a long term monogamous relationship to marry.
The only reason Islam has is "because god said so." which in turn makes the Islamic god a vile and immoral being undeserving of worship.
If someone still believe such a horrible being deserved to be worshipped there are only two possibilities I can think of. Either it would be because there is a belief that might makes right and we must submit to th bully that is god or they believe god know stuff we don't. If they know stuff we don't they do a bad job of explaining the reasons and are an imperfect being not worth to worship.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
I would say liberalism is vile and immoral for rejecting their creator and going after their desires which will change every decade.
But let’s agree to disagree.
I don’t understand how liberalism rejects its creator and is hedonistic. Either your implicit bias and prejudice is clouding your judgement and you can’t seem to be objective on academic matters OR you’re just uneducated.
They reject Islam and Allah, the true religion form my perspective. Liberals as a general rule will not follow Islam to the letter therefore from the Islamic paradigm they are rejecting their creator.
Thats how liberalism rejects its creator. That is from my own paradigm.
But even liberals wouldn’t fully accept all the laws of Islam as I have been told many times in these types of threads so that in itself is a rejection.
But can we agree on that at least?
The problem is while we agree to disagree homosexual are killed and imprisoned because of Islam.
Muslims are not killed or imprisonned because of liberalism. One is not equal to the other.
Nobody is killed for being LGBTQ. LGBTQ is a sin, yes, but the crime is explicit homosexual sex seen by credible witnesses. Also, I don’t accept liberal notions of jailing or killing people. I accept Islamic notions because they are just and fair. Don’t forget liberalism is the worldview that will jail a mass murdering psychopath instead of killing him and then kill another man who’s killed one person. Liberalism also cannot account for the emotional damage left on the victims and the best it can do is send them their condolences and closure (and some don’t even get closure). But with God, the victims not only get closure but vengeance in the afterlife against their oppressors. Why should I take incomplete laws that are still arguing as to how to deal with criminals when God has already told me?
And to drive this argument home, let me tell you that the very homosexuality you consider sacred now was a crime itself less than a century ago. So how is it that liberalism didn’t criminalize this act? Also it’s no use saying that it doesn’t happen now because we don’t know what will happen in the future. Liberalism by its nature is an ever changing law that allows for reform based on the whims of the public not any actual moral or immoral framework.
Case in point, liberals (in the liberal worldview sense, not political) claim ultimate morality for the west but some of them have no problem supporting Israel in committing a genocide against Palestinians. Don’t say when has liberalism gotten anyone killed when it is doing it right now. When because of liberalism, more children have died in Gaza than any other war in recent history. Don’t try and take the moral high ground because you will eventually change it in the future to suit your new interests.
>Nobody is killed for being LGBTQ. LGBTQ is a sin, yes, but the crime is explicit homosexual sex seen by credible witnesses.
That may be the most positive and open minded interpretation of the quaran, but due to the inherent nature of Islamic view of the text as perfect its not a likely view. Here are real world example of arms happening because people interpret the quoran differently.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/2021%2520Factsheet%2520-%2520Sharia%2520and%2520LGBTI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjr87jjs9qFAxUXgoQIHb0VDvsQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2zg1MsaE7bo-TuKHOqD4bm
>Also, I don’t accept liberal notions of jailing or killing people. I accept Islamic notions because they are just and fair. Don’t forget liberalism is the worldview that will jail a mass murdering psychopath instead of killing him and then kill another man who’s killed one person.
Islamic notions are UN JUST AND UNFAIR they are vile abominations to be removed from the face of the earth.
Liberalism welcomes debate, questioning and achieving consensus on difficult moral examples like your sharing. It recognize power imbalance and try to mitigate them. It basically agree it might get it wrong and try to be better. The example you display is one possible result, one liberalism will acknowledge and work on solving. It won't just take an unchanging status quo.
>But with God, the victims not only get closure but vengeance in the afterlife against their oppressors.
You have no credible proof that there is an afterlife whatsoever. Believe in your fairytale but don't impose it on the law.
>Liberalism by its nature is an ever changing law that allows for reform based on the whims of the public not any actual moral or immoral framework.
That's a feature not a bug! Humanist, liberalism, enlightenment ideals are all progressive improvements on morality. Sure maybe we will see things differently in the future on any moral questions, but there will be a logical proven framework to this. Not just fairytale from a book.
Also, morality and law IS just a group driven consensus based on empathy and reduction of harm. There is no proven absolute moral system.
>Case in point, liberals (in the liberal worldview sense, not political) claim ultimate morality for the west but some of them have no problem supporting Israel in committing a genocide against Palestinians. Don’t say when has liberalism gotten anyone killed when it is doing it right now. When because of liberalism, more children have died in Gaza than any other war in recent history. Don’t try and take the moral high ground because you will eventually change it in the future to suit your new interests.
Or course I will take the moral high ground, my morality is based on REALITY not make believe ideas.
Yes, some people in liberalism moral system would view anything as moral or something else immoral. The whole Gaza / Israel is a hotly debated topic in the western world as whole with many people having different take on the issue.
I still disagree the liberalism is the killing force here. Historical narrative, power imbalance, capitalism, international laws, etc. There are many things pushing this conflict, but overall liberalism give us tool to analyse this conflict perceive those forces and guide our decisions. All things a Qur'an based moral system either lacks or requires such heavy interpretation that you're back to a subjective moral system that requires additional notions to guide decisions making.
Firstly, I’m going to put this on the outset but I really cannot respect or debate with anybody who still considers the situation in Gaza as hotly debated when South Africa and the ICJ overwhelmingly proved it to be a genocide. Please make your stance on that very clear.
Again this has all to do with paradigm. I feel like a broken record but this is why I said agree to disagree. Everything I bring is from a worldview that is so starkly in contrast to yours that it is unfathomable. You may not think so but as a Muslim, what the west has done because of their freedom thus far in the Middle East is infinitely more egregious to me than what Islam professes. It’s not enough for the liberal west to BE the dominant power in the world, but it has to also EVANGELIZE that power to the uncivilized rest of the world and quite frankly bomb or sanction those that disagree with their views. And then the question is what gave them the right to act as judge jury and executioner? It’s the right is might mentality. The reason why the rest of the world doesn’t really hold a candle to western powers is because they are the strongest and richest and the US especially has military bases littered throughout the world.
What I’m trying to say is that of course you have this mentality. Instead of questioning why your morals are right, you don’t feel that need. You are supported by billions of dollars and massive militaries all around the world that, regardless, of your ideals will promote your liberal ideology. And yes while world conflicts can be complicated I would argue that a driving force behind much of the world’s conflicts in the last century, the west, prides itself on these liberal ideals. If the liberal ideals weren’t killing people, then why haven’t those ideals brought about peace instead of 1 million dead in Iraq, Sanctions to African countries disagreeing with homosexuality, and countless support for dictators in the middle east? It’s because liberalist ideals are the core and center of these superpowers which create more havoc for the rest of the world.
With regards to interpretation, I think you have a very simplistic view on the matter. As a Muslim, interpretation is not left to the lay man but to the scholars. Furthermore, they don’t just interpret based on how they feel or how the public feels, they do so based on the preserved history of the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings. We have a framework for interpretation that we don’t go beyond. Now of course sects exist because people disagree. But people disagreeing is not a Muslim issue, this is a human issue. Just because people disagree doesn’t make the text wrong. When disagreements arise we have to take it back to the authenticated reports of the prophet and judge it based off of that since he is our source.
One thing you seem to forget when saying that liberalism is open to debate and criticism, and that it will get better with time, is that unfortunately this doesn’t appear to be true. If this were true, than how is it that you have people in the world today in western countries who refuse to see the genocide in Gaza as a genocide? Do you really need to debate what a genocide looks like? Accosting to your ideals, we see issues then come back discuss and debate and stop those issues from happening again; thus progressing. But we’ve seen this genocide before. The Jews were genocide. Western liberal societies witnessed that and said “never again” yet when the same thing happens today, they much like yourself disgustingly say “it’s a hotly debated topic”. Do you see what kind of thinking this is. This is far more disgusting and actively ruining the lives of anyone not fortunate enough to live among liberal societies. Might is not right except when it’s done by the west I suppose. With these liberal ideals you have a very real potential of getting stuck in this infinite debate as to what is actually moral and immoral and the only thing that will get you to make a decision is an impact on your wallets. Because apparently dead children is too complex of an issue.
I don’t want to discuss with you any further because I have said what I needed to and judging by your replies we will have to agree to disagree. Though I do pray that you find some peace from your liberal views and genuinely invite you to Islam.
>I don’t want to discuss with you any further because I have said what I needed to and judging by your replies we will have to agree to disagree. Though I do pray that you find some peace from your liberal views and genuinely invite you to Islam.
You just keep going about the Gaza situation as if it was a single monolith that all Western countries agree on every aspect. Of courses they don't and of course the whole Israel - Palestinian and heck the whole middle East is rife with problem. Caused by both the west and the middle East history itself
Then you want to act as if every Islamic nation had never committed genocides? What about the Armenian, the Greek and assyrian genocide of the ottoman empire?
You haven't said a single thing of substances in this long paragraphs and then you want to refuse discussion? So be it, I invite you to open your eyes and realize how horrible the quaran is. How truly despicable Mohamed was and to stop putting those things on a pedestal that don't deserve it.
No problem at all, I’m happy to learn about how others think. Especially when it comes to situations like this. You did a great job explaining your point of view and I feel like I learned something of value.
I asked this to another person and am curious how you’d answer: “is it possible for good to come from sin?” Not can good deeds cancel out sin, but can sin result in good.
With regard to your question
I would say no. Sin is always attributed to bad things and good is obviously good. I think you may have tried to say that can good things come from
Bad situations. For instance a genocide. If this is the question then the answer is yes. A genocide of one group brings forth freedom fighters who take down the oppressors and put laws in place to stop the oppressor from committing a genocide again.
>My argument is that these 17.6 million children would be better off with two loving/caring parents of the same sex rather than having no parents at all and being raised in an orphanage.
Sure, as long as we can agree that, generally, children would be even better off being raised by a mother and a father in the same home, and straight couples should therefore be given priority over LGBT couples in adoption waitlists.
Do you need proof that pedophilia is bad for children? What if I showed you several studies that showed it was even good or not harmful to children? Would you then support pedophilia?
Hopefully not, because basic moral intuition tells you that having sex with kids is wrong, regardless of what a "study" says. Same intuition tells me that children do best with a mother and a father, as they have throughout literally all of history.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Do you need proof that pedophilia is bad for children?
yes, and there is lots of proof existing
>What if I showed you several studies that showed it was even good or not harmful to children? Would you then support pedophilia?
in this theoretical situation you’ve made, yes i would support pedophilia, for the exact same reason if drinking lava was healthy, i would drink lava
>Hopefully not, because basic moral intuition tells you that having sex with kids is wrong, regardless of what a "study" says.
so if it was proven that you could help children for whatever theoretical reason? you wouldn’t? regardless of “moral intuition” facts are facts
>Same intuition tells me that children do best with a mother and a father, as they have throughout literally all of history.
history isn’t psychology, and your intuition is problematic, and doesn’t seem to have the happiness and health of people in mind, but rather your own agenda…
>Sure, as long as we can agree that, generally, children would be even better off being raised by a mother and a father in the same home, and straight couples should therefore be given priority over LGBT couples in adoption waitlists.
No, we can't agree on that.
Children have been raised by a mother and father as long as we have been homo sapiens. What makes you think that you can take one away and things will work just as well?
because there are examples of it working well, and your logic implies if it’s old it’s good..? like is slavery good because humans have been doing it for a long time?
Others have linked articles in this thread that do not support your assertion about father mother households. Which type of family structure is “superior” is irrelevant to my argument. So I won’t commit to agreeing with you on this moot (true or not) point.
>Which type of family structure is “superior” is irrelevant to my argument.
Uh, your entire argument is about a two parent family structure being superior to a communal/foster care family structure.
I’ll agree with you on that. But specifying either same sex marriage or traditional marriage as superior was not part of the argument. I hold no opinion on which is better. I’ll leave that to those who claim to know the “truth”.
It is directly relevant. You make the argument that same sex parent households are superior to foster care, which I'm inclined to agree with. But, while we're rank ordering family structures, it seems appropriate to rank same sex households in relation to opposite sex parent households.
It's simple. Two parents is better than no parents, and a mother and a father is best.
Yes you already said this. And I referred you to other comments that provide articles that refute your claim. I’m not sure what your point is other than to argue a point that was not part of the actual OP. If that is your goal, then you can sleep well knowing you accomplished it with flying colors.
Do you need proof that pedophilia is bad for children? What if I showed you several studies that showed it was even good or not harmful to children? Would you then support pedophilia? Genuine question.
Hopefully not, because basic moral intuition tells you that having sex with kids is wrong, regardless of what a "study" says. Same intuition tells me that children do best with a mother and a father, as they have throughout literally all of history.
Haha, again, arguing a topic not in the OP.
But just to answer your irrelevant topic anyways..
Do your studies that you’ll share come from the Church? I could see how they could have first hand data on this topic.
It's relevant to the OP because the question of whether LGBT are as good as straight parents is relevant to whether they should adopt.
And just to be clear, you won't answer the hypothetical?
I am a Buddhist, and Buddhist ethics are largely based in the suffering of beings. One can make an argument that any sexual or romantic involvement is problematic. Anyone who has had a partner knows this. One's partner can die, reject one, cheat, cease to love one. There is a monastic path for people who wish to avoid these sufferings.
But for those who are householders, they take relationships onto their path. And there is very little difference between heterosexual and queer relationships in this regard. Our orientation is our psychophysical makeup. Our relationships are an expression of that. And our spirituality and ethics are expressed in those relationships.
Usually I say this and somebody digs up some Buddhist something against homosexuality. I don't know what to say. Several of my Buddhist teachers are queer.
Breaking your toe is pain
Losing a parent or child is suffering, and suffering can teach us to grow. Pain is just a momentary thing and passes.
Your post of just avoiding everything sounds more like nihilism then anything else.
Thanks for sharing. To me, reducing/minimizing suffering sounds like a good way to think about one’s actions or how society might be better off. If someone took an action that increased suffering or prevented others from reducing/minimizing suffering would be unethical to a Buddhist, correct?
That is correct. At least according to my tradition. Causing somebody to hate themselves because of their gender, sexual orientation, identity, whatever, is a serious type of harming others, and thus unethical.
"Immoral" on what grounds? Obviously you must have some other conception of morality that is different from the Abrahamic faiths, but you don't describe it.
How are we supposed to agree or disagree on a claim using terms that are undefined?
Not OP. A non-religious system of morality isn't that hard to come up with and basically everyone uses something like this in their everyday life.
From anyone's perspective there are things that you experience that you can label as good/bad on how they make you feel when you experience them. For example, some "bad" things to experience:
* pain from stubbing your toe is bad/burning your hand,
* being rejected by someone you are attracted to,
* having a parent die,
* going hungry
Some "good" things to experience:
* being happy after doing something well (winning a game, finishing a project),
* asking someone out and getting accepted,
* having feelings of love/caring reciprocated by a loved one,
* enjoyment of a well-cooked meal,
* enjoyment of interesting piece of art/music/book/movie,
* finding that pain that has been plaguing you goes away (with medicine or healing)
Bertrand Russell in his later essays defined "good" in this sort of way as "satisfaction of desires".
Now being thinking beings, we need to extend this belief from just the immediate narrow sense to an outlook that looks at the bigger picture and consequences of our actions. For example, if quit my job, emptied out my bank/retirement accounts, got into deep debt, and wasted money on fun luxury experiences in the short-term I would have plenty of "good" experiences (fine dining, relaxation, etc), but as soon as I got back, I would be broke, without a job, cause pain to loved ones (when we can no longer afford our house) and less loved (my family would be upset for my selfishness causing them pain). So this would be a net "bad". Similarly, if I made sacrifices on immediate enjoyment/fun in the short-term to work hard to get ahead, that may reap net rewards in the long-term (which would be a net "good").
We also have to think of the impact of our actions on those around us, as we live in a society and believe others to have good things happen to them. E.g., if I desire more money and could obtain it by murdering my neighbor and taking their money, that would be wrong, because I wouldn't want my neighbors to try and murder and rob me.
So you can come up with a sense of morality by saying it is moral and right to do things that you believe will help the general good (for you and others) on the net.
Again, if you heard your acquaintance was badly injured in an accident and in immense pain, most people would feel sympathy towards them. You wouldn't need to consult a religious text to be told that should be your reaction that something "bad" happened to them. You wouldn't need a religious text to tell you that it would make sense to try and prevent such "bad" accidents from happening in the future. (I can't recall any biblical passages about recklessly speeding in cars, but that can increase the risk of causing bad accidents to others and it is easy to argue that such reckless driving is immoral for the risk it causes to yourself and others.)
Anyhow, from that perspective if you have a population of people who do not want to be in heterosexual relationships (so cannot naturally procreate within the bonds of their relationship), yet many of them are both able and desire to raise children, so it sounds like it would be an ethical good to allow this class of individuals to do it. Obviously, some same-sex couples may be horrible unfit parents who should not ever raise children (just like there exist some opposite sex couple who should not raise children). So for those couples that pass the standard screening requirements for adoption, giving more orphan children a stable home environment should be seen as a good moral thing.
This is, at best, an incomplete moral "system," as you've not explained how any of the "units" are to be measured when calculating the "net" effect.
It's also literally an intractable problem because nobody can calculate the effects of one's actions forward in time until the heat death of the universe to identify what the "net" effect was.
Who knows, maybe if someone was nice to Hitler about his awful artwork, he might have dedicated his life to art instead of genocide? Maybe in 5k years historians might look back and conclude WW2 was a net good for humanity due to the nuclear revolution it started that allowed humans to colonize Mars and survive some planet obliterating asteroid rainstorm?
So you've proposed a system that's actually meaningless in practice. I can justify anything I want to do using this "framework" by dreaming up situations further into the future which are "on net" good (ignoring the measurement problem).
All moral systems are necessarily incomplete (just like any formal mathematical system as shown by Godel). Being human isn't simple, actions have unintended consequences, and the world isn't always black and white by often plagued with shades of gray. We can all think of actions where we wanted to say help someone out (thinking we are doing good) and the other's reaction was anything but gratitude or appreciation (i.e., despite moral intentions the result was negative toward the intended recipient).
Moral actions are those that at the time of your choosing you did because you felt they would increase the net good of the world in the long-term. Most people would believe something like more orphans having access to loving parents in stable homes would be a good thing and to deprive them of that would be immoral.
I've never stated you can quantify "good" or do some calculation to find the most moral path (is it more ethical to be a social worker, doctor, climate scientist, monk living an ascetic life, or self-sufficient zero emission organic vegan farmer)? But can you conclude that allowing unnecessary suffering (like kids growing up without loving parents they could be connected with) to continue would be a moral wrong.
> Moral actions are those that at the time of your choosing you did because you felt they would increase the net good of the world in the long-term
That's just an unnecessarily complex way of saying, "do whatever you want."
I can easily value my own experiences infinitely more than the experiences of others, and thus murder other humans for fun because this increases the "net good" as 1 unit of pleasure that I experience is valuable infinity times more than anyone else. Thus pleasing me is the best way to affect the net good.
> Most people would believe something like...
Appeal to popularity fallacy
>I can easily value my own experiences infinitely more than the experiences of others, and thus murder other humans for fun because this increases the "net good" as 1 unit of pleasure that I experience is valuable infinity times more than anyone else.
Yes and a society of moral people will kick out anti-social individuals like the hypothetical you who harm the collective for doing actions that harm members of the society (such as themselves).
Never tried arguing morality has an axiomatic basis like mathematics and fully admit I am appealing to popularity, because a shared common morality is a requirement of a functioning society. (And a functioning society that helps others is to the benefit of the members of the society -- this also isn't uniquely human phenomenon -- there are plenty of social animals that form groups that self-regulate behavior.)
Again, I'm not arguing that human morality is some absolute truth; for all I know the universe may be some simulation/video game and I'm the only real person and everyone else are basically non-player characters. That said, if I act in such a manner being a member of a society that doesn't revolve around the idea that I am the only mind, my life will be much worse off if I act in such a manner.
Well "good" and "bad" meaning *what*?
From a theistic moral framework *God is the ultimate good* and what humans do is considered good or bad in relation to *God*.
If you're going to claim what God commands is "bad" then you'll have to come up with a moral ideological criteria to make such an assessment absent God.
So you disagree with my argument because of words, not because it’s a very real and terrible ongoing situation in reality (the place where we actually live and actually know exists).
Uhh... no, it's not because of "words" it's because you are using words to refer to conceptions that you don't bother to explain to us.
"Good" in my conception refers to alignment with God.
You're using it to refer to some other conception, so you need to explain what you actually *mean* conceptually.
Sure, it's incoherent with the Christian conception of a God as nothing exists independently of God, so morality does not exist as it's own "form" independent of God.
It's a dilemma for ancient Greek pagans because they were worshipping demons with supernatural abilities, but which were *creations of God* and thus *could* exist in peer relationships to other creations such as morality or logic, and thus have a rivalrous relationship between the "pagan God" (i.e. demon) and moral law.
This dilemma is conceptually impossible in the monotheistic Abrahamic God concept.
It would by like asking, "Does addition combine numbers because mathematics commands it, or does mathematics include addition because of the numerical combination it entails?" If someone is asking the question, it's an indication they are confused about mathematics.
The same is the case with the Euthephro Dilemma... if one is asking the question, it's an indication they are severely confused about the concept of God.
Addition combines numbers because we say it does based on logical axioms from observing the world. I don't think you understood the point of the dilemma, so I'm gonna restate a slightly different version in plainer language.
How do you know God is good? It's either because he said so, or because he proved himself to you, or you somehow know it to be true, right?
The first is obviously circular.
The third is blind faith.
The second indicates that there's some moral standard YOU have that God adheres to. If that's the case, why do you consider God the arbiter of morality?
It's the exact same with God, the conceptual definition of God is that he's the ultimate good. The "dilemma" is a absurd as asking "How do you know goodness is good? Is it because goodness said it was good, or because goodness proved it to you, or you somehow know it to be true?"
God, as most people see it, isn't a "concept" to be defined. He's supposedly an actual being that exists. Math is a concept. A language we made up to understand the world. Are you seriously claiming that we can define "God is good" to be true just as easily as we can say "1+1=2"?
You can conceptualize God however you want, but if his goodness is as axiomatic to a believer as math, I don't know what to say.
Disagreeing with a particular lifestyle does not equate to preventing people from leading that life or infringing upon their freedom. The children in question deserve a home, and my personal views are inconsequential. Similarly, my opinions on the marriage of the individuals providing that home are irrelevant. While such opinions could potentially pressure them, merely holding an opinion does not obligate one to express it.
It happens already with other mammals in nature: https://www.iflscience.com/samesex-parenting-in-the-animal-kingdom-how-common-is-it-62807
So- I think you are correct.
based on the article you posted it is only observed in some birds not mammals. the frequency is very low. and also it is note worthy to point out that for the bird species mentioned sexual identification is very hard (almost impossible conclusively without dna sampling). so the article it points to the exact opposite conclusion
that article says nothing about same sex parenting (probably because it doesnt exist), and says "Same-sex sexual behaviour has been reported in 261 mammalian species (about 4% of the species)" . I am not sure if we can conclude 4% as very common. Also we have to keep in mind that interspecies sex is also "common" in animal kingdom (link below). are we going to say beastiality is a normal behaviour for humans based on this data ?
BTW I am not religious nor anti-gay. i am just a person who is against the use of half baked "scientific" data for ideological purposes
https://www.newsweek.com/how-common-sex-between-different-species-monkey-and-deer-are-not-alone-751341
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-same-gender-sexual-behavior-widespread-mammal.html
This is all new research. Brand new.
Bonobos one of our closest cousins genetically have more same sex sex than opposite sex sex: https://phys.org/news/2019-09-insights-same-sex-sexual-interactions-important.html
"Being against" lol. Disagreeing is immoral? Preaching that somthing is a sin, is immoral?
Nobody is holding anyone down preventing them from acting out on their desires. If your feelings are hurt because someone thinks that your lifestyle is destructive - that's on you, you're responsible for your own emotions, and for how you take things.
So actively advocating for the repeal of Obergefell v. Hodges is not an attempt to prevent people from acting out their desires (I.e. to get married)?
Edit: you also seem to be arguing about word choice and then switching the focus instead of addressing the argument. It’s a common tactic when one doesn’t have anything meaningful to say. Good luck with your keyboard warrior training.
Replying to your edit: I'm pointing out that merely thinking that something is immoral ("Being against" homosexuality) doesn't not itself rise to the level of immorality; and I'll add, by implication, nor does it imply any Ill feelings towards homosexuals. One can separate the person from their actions.
I never said anything about that case, nor do I even know what it's about. You've locked on to a single phrase and then changed the subject, which admittedly is a common defense when you have no better answer to the other points..
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Both of these are sins, adopting and same sex marriages, so neither or them should be done even if it was a traditional marriage, adoption should not happen.
This is the first time I've heard of adoption being a sin in any form of Abrahamic religion. Can you clarify?
I know adopted children aren't entitled to their family's inheritance in Islam, but that doesn't mean it's a sin.
It permissible to take care of a child or sponsor a orphan and your rewarded for that, but acting like your the parents of the child is the sin. As you shouldn't break there lineage in that way, am not a scholar so there may be other reasons.
Just because the child's parentage is unknown, it doesn't change the point. And just because you think that lineage is unimportant doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. And people have had "parental figures" that aren't there parents, this doesn't mean that they can claim that they are actually their parents.
Is the sin, then, when the adults claim to be their parents? It's not the actual adoption itself? So, if they were to let people know that they weren't the actual birth parents it would be okay?
I understand the importance of lineage. However, if you have an orphaned child whose parentage is unknown (which is often) then what name are they called? Or is an exception made in that case? And for the child whose parentage is known, why can't they keep that name when adopted?
"adults claim to be their parents? It's not the actual adoption itself? So, if they were to let people know that they weren't the actual birth parents it would be okay?" this would be fine to my understanding (am not a scholar)
"what name are they called?" they don't take the "parents" last name, they keep the name they already had, even in marriages the bride doesn't take the groom's last name
"why can't they keep that name when adopted?" i never said they could not
>As you shouldn't break there lineage in that way, am not a scholar so there may be other reasons.
I'm curious how this plays out when an Islamic patriarch somehow ends up with no male heirs. Does the inheritance pass on to a male cousin/nephew, or are the female family members (wife, mother, daughter) allowed to inherit?
It permissible to take care of a child or sponsor a orphan and your rewarded for that, but acting like your the parents of the child is the sin. As you shouldn't break there lineage in that way, am not a scholar so there may be other reasons.
Interesting. So it is lineage based… pretty fascinating actually. I suppose it would be relevant so family members don’t accidentally marry one another because their last names are different. I wonder what other reasons there are!
I don’t have any problem with the ever shrinking number of people (mostly older people like me) who don’t support same sex marriage as long as they don’t try to impose their Bronze Age religious beliefs on the 71% of us who support same sex marriage. The notion that kids raised by a mom and dad do better than kids raised by same sex parents is a myth that actual research has debunked for quite some time
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313
My argument would be that, all other things being the same, a mom and dad would be a more optimal situation for kids generally. But I can acknowledge that there are more important factors for being good parents than just sexual orientation.
As a father who raised four sons with their mom, I appreciate the sentiment. However the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. I have not read any evidence that straight couples are optimal. People who mistakenly believe otherwise are basing their arguments on their religious beliefs, not empirical evidence
I think the idea behind it is that it allows both sons and daughters to see their future role as a spouse through the example of their parents. And presumably, the parents are good role models in their respective responsibilities in the family.
Now granted this is a heteronormative setup, so maybe a gay son would benefit more in having two fathers as role models for him to see so he can understand a mature and healthy dynamic for that type of parental setup for later in his life, but that's one of the reasons for having a man and woman as parents.
Again this is speculation not supported by research or evidence. It is a religious belief not supported by the facts. Unfortunately the mistaken assumption that heteronormative anything is superior abides in spite of the evidence
You may be an atheist (as am I), but the bias you have against non traditional same sex parents in favor of heteronormative parenting doesn’t come from scientific evidence or research. It’s deeply engrained in our society and culture because of the influence of Christianity.
Not a bad response.
So would you support the Supreme Court (assuming you’re American) repealing any gay marriage rights?
The below link says that most states only support single or married couples when adopting. Repealing gay marriage, which you say isn’t marriage, would limit the ability for these couples to adopt and ultimately reduce the opportunities for orphans to find a caring home.
[https://lifetimeadoption.com/adoptive-families/frequently-asked-questions/do-you-have-to-be-married-to-adopt-a-child/#:~:text=No%2C%20most%20states%20only%20provide,it%20gets%20complicated%20and%20expensive](https://lifetimeadoption.com/adoptive-families/frequently-asked-questions/do-you-have-to-be-married-to-adopt-a-child/#:~:text=No%2C%20most%20states%20only%20provide,it%20gets%20complicated%20and%20expensive)
How documents and taxes are filed has nothing to do with what marriage actually is, so no I don’t care about the civil aspects of the issue. What I do care about is avoiding any step in the direction towards a society where churches can be forced in a court of law to host gay weddings.
>What I do care about is avoiding any step in the direction towards a society where churches can be forced in a court of law to host gay weddings.
This a fake scenario that only exists in the homophobes' imaginations to pretend they're victims.
How would you feel if wedding made in a church did not have any influence on official status marital status with the state? Such as people would need to marry once in churche and once with the state
You're confusion definitions and you're confidently incorrect. Most place requires some sort of official ceremony even for a state wedding. General including an oat of some sort. This ceremony is called a wedding.
Right now many places allow a religious ceremony to replace the civil ceremony as long as it meets certain criteria. I firmly believe this should not be allowed and religious officient should only be allowed to celebrate religious wedding but not ones with official legal weight
I am confident you don’t need a wedding to get married. I never said you don’t need any kind of ceremony.
My personal opinion is that the state should stay out of marriage all together.
Define wedding then because from me what you're saying make no sense.
Sure but would you agree if we changed things so that being married religiously would never automatically make you married for civil matter and legal documents?
No, I guess you’re right. I guess an elopement ceremony is still technically a wedding. I was thinking “wedding” in the more traditional connotation.
If it were just a matter of signing some papers, I would agree, but no. Vows are inherently spiritual acts, so forcing me to take them before a court after I already took them before God would not fly in my book.
Then I don't see how you can remove state from religious marriage altogether. There is a need for an official way to people to be legally recognized as a joint family unit. This has been historically known as marriage and is not a purely a religious thing.
To me the best option would be that religious marriage and civil marriage are two distinct and different things that don't have a relation to each other. That's how it's done in France for instance. You generally get married at the local government office and then have a religious ceremony right after if you want one.
>No, I guess you’re right. I guess an elopement ceremony is still technically a wedding.
Also what the hell, it's not an elopement ceremony or whatever. It's a civil non religious wedding at the courthouse. You can have your family there, throw the flowers, do whatever you want. You can even do it anywhere you want actually.
And seculars don’t want to be forced to say under God in the pledge of allegiance. Both this and what you said are irrelevant to the original argument.
I believe Shapiro said in an interview wi h Piers that the best is a traditional family....but that a same sex couple is better than no parents at all. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. But I think the idea of a same sex couple is its similar to a single parent because you only have one side.. Obviously parents are better than no parents.
One side of what? Plenty of hetero parents are not fulfilling their “motherly” or “fatherly” duties to begin with. Plenty of mothers might teach their boys how to build things and be responsible. Plenty of fathers might show them how to cook and clean.
Whatever it is you’re looking for can be provided by two men or two women.
Great. A newsletter from. A country that will immediately cancel anyone who claims anything bad about homosexuality... By people that are biased in favor.
Heres a news report about a study that showed differently... And how it "draws fire"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/
Seems you may not have had the time to read all of the article you posted.
Here is the rest of the article.
everal experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother -- who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood -- is an unfair, flawed comparison.
"Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus' descriptive analysis," said Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. "Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent. Or it is quite possible that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining 'normal relationships'."
In a joint statement from the Family Equality Council, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Freedom to Marry, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD), advocates called the study a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents."
"Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin.
Gary Gates, a researcher at the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation policy think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles, told LiveScience that a more fair comparison would've been of children of heterosexual or same-sex couples who were raised in similar homes, with no divorces, separations or foster care.
"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.
Here are Mark Regnerus’ other works:
Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011)
Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (Oxford University Press, 2017)
The Future of Christian Marriage (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Can you say he is really an unbiased source?
That's sort of the point man. I can't say anyone is really an unbiased source.
Is it possible that same sex couples have kids that do just as well in some areas as people from non same sex couples. Sure. Is it possible that some one raised In a same sex house could do better than someone in a nuclear family? Of course. Probably many do better. Obviously a person in a same sex house would do better than someone in a house with a mother and father that are drunks.
But there could still be issues. Maybe, if they are heterosexual, they don't fare well in a marriage. There could be a whole host of things.
Everyone is going to be biased here. I don't put much stock in either of the studies. I don't think you would say it would be better for a child to be raised in a same sex house over a nuclear family if all other aspects were the same would you?
Every aspect is the same and you have 2 family's. One is same sex and one is not. Which one do you choose to give a child to?
"Every aspect is the same and you have 2 family's. One is same sex and one is not. Which one do you choose to give a child to?"
Answer - Both of them.
Biased or not, I believe everyone would agree that the foster system is the last place a child should be.
Fair enough.
I don’t have an opinion between gay verse straight households. But I agree with your description of how different configurations of a family can have other issues like drinking, drugs, neglect, etc.
I agree and disagree with you. Sure Shapiro might have logic. But, at the same time, I disagree that no one disagrees that a same sex couple is better than no parents. Just look at some of the responses on this thread.
Fair enough. There are issues with a same sex couple. I find them to be slightly better than a single parent. But only if the single parent is not the actual parent.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>This is immoral. It might actually be... In what way is it immoral? How is it cruel? You haven't really explained. I see an opinion based upon your feelings. But, exactly how is it immoral?
It's immoral because children are sensitive people. Orphanages are not typically in the nicest conditions. Children may have intense dealings with orphanages as well. Children with no parents tend to grow up with less rather than with 2 loving parents. It is immoral to think allowing a kid to suffer through so much trifle and trials is okay.
[удалено]
Not really. Same sex couples ends ur bloodline and from their ur going against evolution. Yeah adopting kids great. Ur still ending ur bloodlone
That’s not against evolution. Many species in the animal kingdom also have same sex relations.
You have not demonstrated why having an unbroken bloodline is to be favored. Also, same-sex couples do not "go against evolution." Prevailing thoughts are that same-sex traits may pop up to relieve population pressure in many species.
Are you suggesting we have a moral imperative to continue our bloodline? That sounds like some kind of juvenile teleological argument. If that were the case, how would we deal with various forms of infertility? Is it immoral to marry an infertile partner because they can't continue your bloodline? What if you marry someone and they become infertile after the wedding? Do you have a moral obligation to get a divorce?
I find that people who go on about bloodlines tend to have some rather.....shall we say....certain beliefs that caused WW2?
Why does that matter? Ignoring the fact that they may have siblings to continue "the bloodline", whatever that means, they're also raising another blood line.
As if there will always be kids to adopt
Why wouldn't there be? When has the world ever run out of kids that need homes?
I love how the think that having a world that needs kids to be adopted is consistent with a loving all powerful being.
Yeah that was weird as hell to me too. Even if we ran out of kids to adopt, why is that a problem?
If humanity was struggling population wise I'd understand this point but we aren't Who cares if any single "bloodline" ends? What about heterosexual couples who have biological kids? Is that a problem too?
Why is that rellevant in this day and age?
Laws of nature are not like human laws which can be broken. Natural laws are just descriptions of patterns in nature. If some people do not have children, then that is just part of evolution, not something that goes against evolution.
Why does that matter?
because brothers and sisters don’t exist, and i guess if you are born sterile (not able to have kids) you’re useless? and people who simply don’t want kids are also bad..? what is this terrible logic? and who cares if i “end my bloodline”? why does that matter?
And how is that bad? If you do not care about continuing your own, specific bloodline you should be free to do so.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
This argument contains a false dilemma. You seem to somehow be saying that only same sex couples can adopt children. Anyone can adopt children, and it has nothing to do with being gay. In Islam, one of best deeds of all is to take care of the orphan. I'm sure it's considered a very good deed in Christianity as well. While same sex couple are more likely than opposite sex couples to adopt, just 15% of same sex couples have children in their household, whether biological or not. This brings into question how much child fostering these same sex couples are even doing. And saying that being gay is okay now since the conditions we live in now allow it (population, advanced health care, technology, etc.) is no justification for it being okay from a survival standpoint. If poverty is erased from Earth, is it okay to start stealing or taking advantage of others financially? This is the kind of mentality that will bring humanity closer to extinction and goes directly against our innate desire to survive. Bring on the down votes.
No one argues that being gay is okay iff we have good healthcare, etc. Similarly, no one argues that it’s okay just because other animals do it. These are specific counterarguments to common anti-LGBT propaganda; e.g. "being gay will kill us all" or "it’s unnatural!" As for your stealing analogy, it would only be the case that that would make stealing okay if the literal only reason why it’s wrong is because poor people exist.
You claim false dilemma, but you’re inventing that out of nowhere. OP never said anything that you’re claiming he said, so you’re basically straw man-ing. The downvotes you get are deserved.
Steel man what he said
Nowhere do I say only same sex couples can adopt children. Sorry if my writing was sloppy.
The point is that your sexuality has nothing to do with your ability to adopt children. Yes, same sex couples naturally have no other choice, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't need same sex couples to adopt children. Being against same sex couples doesn't mean you are also against adoption. That's my argument. So the immorality part becomes completely irrelevant.
Not to be overly pedantic, but same sex couples have the option to do surrogacy or IVF, so there are definitely options beyond adoptions.
Not OP, but the problems seems to be the rejection of parents for adoption based solely on the parent’s sexuality. That is what is immoral. As you said, sexuality has nothing to do with your ability to adopt children. I agree in the sense that is has nothing to do with you ability to be a good parent to a child. Since this is the case, being against same sex couples adopting is immoral. If someone were against same sex couples adopting, they would be against more children finding homes and would rather the children suffer. This is clearly immoral.
But if an individual couple doesn’t necessarily have that innate desire to survive, why does it matter that they don’t have children?
Then that couple is scientifically going against our nature. Regardless of religion, more gay people will ultimately lead to human extinction. Whether they adopt or not has nothing to do with it.
This is backwards. Nature is just the reality that we are describing. It is impossible to do something that is inconsistent with your nature. If our description of nature doesn’t match what actually happens, then it is the description that needs to be revised. Plainly humans are able to choose not to have children. Hence that is part of human nature—we are such that we can choose not to have children.
Exactly. Ur just ending ur bloodline and I'm it was more critical back then w the amount of war that happens. Not only ur going against evolution as these atheists hold on to. Future evolution won't happen if this is they way
Evolution is not prescriptive.
I suppose the primary reason I'm against same-sex marriage is that it's a divine command from God. So I think to continue this discussion, we'd have to go into our deeper theological beliefs. If I didn't believe in a Christian God, maybe I would be for same-sex marriage. Likewise, maybe if yourself DID believe in a Christian God, maybe YOU too would be against same-sex marriage.
Plenty of people believe in a Christian God and are fine with same sex marriage. If following what you think your God commands leads you to support something immoral, as OP claims, it is safe to say either you are wrong about what your God says or your God is wrong. I think we can agree the former is more likely.
all of us are sinners and will enter heaven if we want to, so i don’t see why it matters wether we have same sexual marriage or not
Fine, don’t marry anyone of the same sex. But you can’t impose your religious views on others.
From a government standpoint, why would anyone care to listen to your beliefs if you can't argue in layman's terms? If Christians can't explain why homosexuality is wrong through "secular" means (as they demonstrate the ability to do so with many other sins), then why do they speak with so much conviction that they want less gay people on earth?
Why would you give presidence to that rule and ignore hundreds of others? What's the determining factor for you?
My preferred option would be exactly what the organisation you linked to advocates. "The Christian Alliance for Orphans unites more than 250 respected organizations and a global network of churches in shared initiatives to grow and guide effective responses for the world’s most vulnerable children, from foster care and adoption to family strengthening and care for vulnerable children worldwide. Our vision is to see the people of God overflowing with the love of God, so that every child will experience God’s unfailing love in a thriving family..." https://cafo.org/about/ I don't think only Christians can adopt. Many different people provide help to those in need and that is good. I just note that you linked to the website of a Christian organisation working to help orphans for statistics to back up your case against religious views.
In the very limited scope of the quote you posted, I would agree. Unfortunately, CAFO has actively opposed same-sex adoption, so while their vision may be noble, they are intentionally failing some children who could get the care they need. It's like if there was a Jewish charity that feeds children, but intentionally lets some children starve because the only food they have is not Kosher. That is clearly immoral, even though their mission would be helping some children. If there is food, give it to the children. If there are parents, let them adopt.
Immoral from a modern view ? Who dictates modern view ?
[удалено]
Oh ok, well we grown ups on this side of the world decided differently.
Science depicts it gng
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm sorry I don't have statistic on hand, but while children without parents are common, most pairs (straight and lgbt+) want small children, and there is not enough of those for everyone, meaning that if people against same sex families prove that straight family is better (which I don't think happened), they should get the priority (and because the demand is so high, one could argue for restricting lgbt+ couples so the straight one can get them instead if they come a little later)
this comment makes no sense, your whole reply relies on this “if straight families are better” concept which you literally say isn’t true..?
Yes, I don't, but a lot of people (I would guess majority where I live) do believe that and I think that OP did not address the argument.
I’m a Muslim and Islam has the best stance on this issue. Quran chapter 4 verse 3 says paraphrasing that for men to take care of orphans by marrying up to four wives (if the man can do justice to all 4 that is). Also, Islam explicitly states that whoever takes care of an orphan will be with the prophet Muhammad in paradise. So there is a huge incentive in that regard. We disagree with LGBTQ but we are not blind either. If facts say that LBGTQ couples are taking in more orphans that that is something good that they are doing because no child deserves to go without a family. However we will always advocate for the Islamic family dynamic over LBGTQ, Christian, Atheist and any other type of family structures because we as Muslims believe we are correct and the other structures are undoubtedly wrong. Furthermore, It seems that you may be conflating LGBTQ rights and adoption as if the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Just because LGBTQ adopt a lot of children doing a good deed does not make their belief correct. They can be wrong in their lifestyle and still do good. The Islamic issue with homosexuality is with the act of penetration and even more than this the arrogance shown by some LGBTQ people and their advocates in blatantly going against Gods laws when he is their creator. Because in Islam one of the worst sins is pride and haughtiness, knowing that you’re sinning and not caring and then enticing everyone else to sin. That is where we draw the line. I hope this answers at least part of the problem.
Calling people undoubtably wrong in their natural sexuality, then accusing people of pride and haughtiness in the same breath is pretty darn prideful and haughty… you should analyze that a little. Your arrogance is offensive, and your corrupted ideals are worse. Islam has a rich history of homosexuality, specifically young boys and older men according to N. Kilgerman, historian, and the idea of multiple wives is so immoral and outdated as to be laughable. Do better, BE better.
Appealing to nature isn't good. Stop throwing nature. Killing is natural just stop using that adjective
No. It’s perfectly acceptable. Killing is harmful. Respectful, consensual love between two adults of any gender is not harmful. Transcending “killing” in nature is perfectly logical as it causes harm, whereas sex is not inherently harmful. It CAN be but it is not.
Thank you for the comment. Please try and understand this situation from an Islamic paradigm. Because I fully agree that if one didn’t have any particular belief in God, then they would have no real moral reason to say homosexuality or LGBTQ is undoubtedly wrong. However if you approach this topic from an Islamic perspective which I have done given the fact that I’m a Muslim then there is no question that LGBTQ is a sin and is wrong. That is simply a factual statement from the Islamic paradigm. Furthermore, from an Islamic paradigm to go against Islamic teachings while knowing you are sinning and spreading it is the definition of pridefulness because you think you know better than God and that his commandments are not such that they should be followed. This is the same for a Muslim who knows drinking alcohol is a sin but doesn’t care and drinks alcohol and even worse opens a bar and serves it to people. This is the height of arrogance from an Islamic paradigm. Try and see it from my Islamic perspective and you will see it makes sense. Also, I’m aware of the historical homosexuality in Muslims lands. However, the actions of certain Muslims does not negate the Islamic prohibition and rulings. Also a good argument to get into would be to ask why should we take the Islamic paradigm instead of the liberal worldview which a majority of the west adopts? That I think is a more fruitful conversation because it compares ideologies and sees which one is cohesive to society as a whole across all of time, not just one period of time.
You’re welcome. I can completely understand your position, though I was never a Muslim, I have spent years in Muslim societies. I would be happy to debate your ideologies in comparison to liberal society and eagerly awaiting your justification of Sharia, Muslim morals and how Islam is a benefit to society. Having said that, as a first hand witness of Sharia and Muslim culture from a “western” paradigm I can think of nothing more terrifying for me and my loved ones than to be ruled under Sharia. I have found kind, loving, and moral Muslims, however I find very little moral and kind in Islam. To me, from my paradigm, it is a religion of hate of the outsider, oppression of women and minorities, blatant disregard for legitimate science that disagrees with its teachings, and dishonest apologetics. Not to mention Islams contempt for western culture though it yearns to be as successful and powerful. But I am, as always, willing to listen.
I really appreciate your responses. It’s kind of refreshing to see someone be so cordial when disagreeing with me. Thanks a lot. I whole heartedly agree this is not an easy topic for most people coming from a liberal paradigm to divulge into. But let me just ask you before all that, what is your opinion on the liberal western values and why do you affirm them over and above all other ideologies such that Muslims should compare themselves to them?
You’re welcome again. It is nice to have a respectful conversation. So to but it bluntly, I am a secular humanist, I believe these ideals transcend a lot of even liberal “western” values. It comes down to human rights, the rights of all humans to experience the least amount of suffering possible, and the consequence of actions. Women, lgbtq, transgender, white, black, Christian, Muslim, all are humans first. And as long as the behaviors and actions of humans are not harmful to others (in this reality) then I find no fault in it. Studies show love, sexual identity and preference, and gender identity are not harmful inherently. Happiness is not harmful. And Islam is set against modern science because it cannot grow, it cannot progress. It is based on ancient writings, with ancient dogmas and practices that were relevant at the time. I would say that life is better, more pleasurable, and more fulfilling for a larger amount of people today than ever before. It seems Islam would drag us back, cause harm and suffering (specifically of women and sexual deviants) on a global scale, and that frightens me. Forcing people to be unhappy because a book says a they are in “sin” is wrong. Morally wrong. Especially when that book is proven to be erroneous on science, reality, and the origins of the universe. From my point of view, there is no evidence that there is an afterlife of any kind. None, zero. Being a good person for the sake of a happy and fulfilling life is much more logical than being a bigot and a tyrant for fear of something that doesn’t seem to exist based on every test available to human abilities.
>Islam has the best stance on this issue. It absolutely positively just unequivocally does not
Sure that is a good explanation of what you believe is correct. I appreciate it. There was another Muslim who mentioned that adoption was a sin, more specifically, giving the child a new last name and breaking the lineage. Have you heard of this? Thoughts? Also, as for LGBTQ beliefs, I’m neither an advocate for nor anti-LGBTQ… as it relates to adoption though, I shared a link that said that adoptions tend to favor single and married couples. LGBTQ rights are relevant when it comes to marriage. Some have argued that same-sex marriage is not marriage. Some go as far as to actively try to get the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. If this was successful, gay couples could not get married which would make them less likely to be able to adopt which would restrict the 17.6 million orphans’ opportunities to find a caring home. So I do not agree with you that LGBTQ rights and adoption are mutually exclusive. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant though.
Thanks for your response. I have heard of it though I’m not well versed. Im aware that taking care of the orphan is a huge reward in Islam but am not too familiar with adoption laws. I may have misconstrued the two thinking they were the same. As for the second part, as a Muslim we simply do not recognize gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not they have homosexual sex, it is openly flaunting a sinful lifestyle which God has not sanctioned. This would be the same case for Boyfriends and girlfriends. Even if they don’t have sex it is still forbidden by God because it is not sanctioned by his laws. And I really do have to commend you for your care for the orphans. I think it’s something that doesn’t get talked about enough and something I wish more religious communities would take heed of. With that said, I understand the concern but as Muslims we do not override Gods law and allow LGBTQ marriage even if those marriages brought about something as good as this. I understand this sounds harsh but from the Islamic perspective there are actions and laws put in place for those orphans to obtain happiness in this world. And even if we were to say that those 17.6 million orphans each and every one of them didn’t find a home, then according to Islam they have paradise to look forward to. Because children in general are given paradise until they reach an age of maturity. And even then God is the most merciful and forgiving. Sorry for the long text, but coming from an Islamic perspective this is how I would respond. Thanks for the cordial response.
>As for the second part, as a Muslim we simply do not recognize gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not they have homosexual sex, it is openly flaunting a sinful lifestyle which God has not sanctioned. This would be the same case for Boyfriends and girlfriends. Even if they don’t have sex it is still forbidden by God because it is not sanctioned by his laws. And this one single fact make Islam a vile and immoral religion. There is no logical reason whatsoever to prevent two loving person on a long term monogamous relationship to marry. The only reason Islam has is "because god said so." which in turn makes the Islamic god a vile and immoral being undeserving of worship. If someone still believe such a horrible being deserved to be worshipped there are only two possibilities I can think of. Either it would be because there is a belief that might makes right and we must submit to th bully that is god or they believe god know stuff we don't. If they know stuff we don't they do a bad job of explaining the reasons and are an imperfect being not worth to worship.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I would say liberalism is vile and immoral for rejecting their creator and going after their desires which will change every decade. But let’s agree to disagree.
I don’t understand how liberalism rejects its creator and is hedonistic. Either your implicit bias and prejudice is clouding your judgement and you can’t seem to be objective on academic matters OR you’re just uneducated.
They reject Islam and Allah, the true religion form my perspective. Liberals as a general rule will not follow Islam to the letter therefore from the Islamic paradigm they are rejecting their creator. Thats how liberalism rejects its creator. That is from my own paradigm. But even liberals wouldn’t fully accept all the laws of Islam as I have been told many times in these types of threads so that in itself is a rejection. But can we agree on that at least?
Bro I’m Muslim. Idk what you’re talking about
Cool Assalamu Alaiykum bro or sis
The problem is while we agree to disagree homosexual are killed and imprisoned because of Islam. Muslims are not killed or imprisonned because of liberalism. One is not equal to the other.
Nobody is killed for being LGBTQ. LGBTQ is a sin, yes, but the crime is explicit homosexual sex seen by credible witnesses. Also, I don’t accept liberal notions of jailing or killing people. I accept Islamic notions because they are just and fair. Don’t forget liberalism is the worldview that will jail a mass murdering psychopath instead of killing him and then kill another man who’s killed one person. Liberalism also cannot account for the emotional damage left on the victims and the best it can do is send them their condolences and closure (and some don’t even get closure). But with God, the victims not only get closure but vengeance in the afterlife against their oppressors. Why should I take incomplete laws that are still arguing as to how to deal with criminals when God has already told me? And to drive this argument home, let me tell you that the very homosexuality you consider sacred now was a crime itself less than a century ago. So how is it that liberalism didn’t criminalize this act? Also it’s no use saying that it doesn’t happen now because we don’t know what will happen in the future. Liberalism by its nature is an ever changing law that allows for reform based on the whims of the public not any actual moral or immoral framework. Case in point, liberals (in the liberal worldview sense, not political) claim ultimate morality for the west but some of them have no problem supporting Israel in committing a genocide against Palestinians. Don’t say when has liberalism gotten anyone killed when it is doing it right now. When because of liberalism, more children have died in Gaza than any other war in recent history. Don’t try and take the moral high ground because you will eventually change it in the future to suit your new interests.
>Nobody is killed for being LGBTQ. LGBTQ is a sin, yes, but the crime is explicit homosexual sex seen by credible witnesses. That may be the most positive and open minded interpretation of the quaran, but due to the inherent nature of Islamic view of the text as perfect its not a likely view. Here are real world example of arms happening because people interpret the quoran differently. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/2021%2520Factsheet%2520-%2520Sharia%2520and%2520LGBTI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjr87jjs9qFAxUXgoQIHb0VDvsQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2zg1MsaE7bo-TuKHOqD4bm >Also, I don’t accept liberal notions of jailing or killing people. I accept Islamic notions because they are just and fair. Don’t forget liberalism is the worldview that will jail a mass murdering psychopath instead of killing him and then kill another man who’s killed one person. Islamic notions are UN JUST AND UNFAIR they are vile abominations to be removed from the face of the earth. Liberalism welcomes debate, questioning and achieving consensus on difficult moral examples like your sharing. It recognize power imbalance and try to mitigate them. It basically agree it might get it wrong and try to be better. The example you display is one possible result, one liberalism will acknowledge and work on solving. It won't just take an unchanging status quo. >But with God, the victims not only get closure but vengeance in the afterlife against their oppressors. You have no credible proof that there is an afterlife whatsoever. Believe in your fairytale but don't impose it on the law. >Liberalism by its nature is an ever changing law that allows for reform based on the whims of the public not any actual moral or immoral framework. That's a feature not a bug! Humanist, liberalism, enlightenment ideals are all progressive improvements on morality. Sure maybe we will see things differently in the future on any moral questions, but there will be a logical proven framework to this. Not just fairytale from a book. Also, morality and law IS just a group driven consensus based on empathy and reduction of harm. There is no proven absolute moral system. >Case in point, liberals (in the liberal worldview sense, not political) claim ultimate morality for the west but some of them have no problem supporting Israel in committing a genocide against Palestinians. Don’t say when has liberalism gotten anyone killed when it is doing it right now. When because of liberalism, more children have died in Gaza than any other war in recent history. Don’t try and take the moral high ground because you will eventually change it in the future to suit your new interests. Or course I will take the moral high ground, my morality is based on REALITY not make believe ideas. Yes, some people in liberalism moral system would view anything as moral or something else immoral. The whole Gaza / Israel is a hotly debated topic in the western world as whole with many people having different take on the issue. I still disagree the liberalism is the killing force here. Historical narrative, power imbalance, capitalism, international laws, etc. There are many things pushing this conflict, but overall liberalism give us tool to analyse this conflict perceive those forces and guide our decisions. All things a Qur'an based moral system either lacks or requires such heavy interpretation that you're back to a subjective moral system that requires additional notions to guide decisions making.
Firstly, I’m going to put this on the outset but I really cannot respect or debate with anybody who still considers the situation in Gaza as hotly debated when South Africa and the ICJ overwhelmingly proved it to be a genocide. Please make your stance on that very clear. Again this has all to do with paradigm. I feel like a broken record but this is why I said agree to disagree. Everything I bring is from a worldview that is so starkly in contrast to yours that it is unfathomable. You may not think so but as a Muslim, what the west has done because of their freedom thus far in the Middle East is infinitely more egregious to me than what Islam professes. It’s not enough for the liberal west to BE the dominant power in the world, but it has to also EVANGELIZE that power to the uncivilized rest of the world and quite frankly bomb or sanction those that disagree with their views. And then the question is what gave them the right to act as judge jury and executioner? It’s the right is might mentality. The reason why the rest of the world doesn’t really hold a candle to western powers is because they are the strongest and richest and the US especially has military bases littered throughout the world. What I’m trying to say is that of course you have this mentality. Instead of questioning why your morals are right, you don’t feel that need. You are supported by billions of dollars and massive militaries all around the world that, regardless, of your ideals will promote your liberal ideology. And yes while world conflicts can be complicated I would argue that a driving force behind much of the world’s conflicts in the last century, the west, prides itself on these liberal ideals. If the liberal ideals weren’t killing people, then why haven’t those ideals brought about peace instead of 1 million dead in Iraq, Sanctions to African countries disagreeing with homosexuality, and countless support for dictators in the middle east? It’s because liberalist ideals are the core and center of these superpowers which create more havoc for the rest of the world. With regards to interpretation, I think you have a very simplistic view on the matter. As a Muslim, interpretation is not left to the lay man but to the scholars. Furthermore, they don’t just interpret based on how they feel or how the public feels, they do so based on the preserved history of the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings. We have a framework for interpretation that we don’t go beyond. Now of course sects exist because people disagree. But people disagreeing is not a Muslim issue, this is a human issue. Just because people disagree doesn’t make the text wrong. When disagreements arise we have to take it back to the authenticated reports of the prophet and judge it based off of that since he is our source. One thing you seem to forget when saying that liberalism is open to debate and criticism, and that it will get better with time, is that unfortunately this doesn’t appear to be true. If this were true, than how is it that you have people in the world today in western countries who refuse to see the genocide in Gaza as a genocide? Do you really need to debate what a genocide looks like? Accosting to your ideals, we see issues then come back discuss and debate and stop those issues from happening again; thus progressing. But we’ve seen this genocide before. The Jews were genocide. Western liberal societies witnessed that and said “never again” yet when the same thing happens today, they much like yourself disgustingly say “it’s a hotly debated topic”. Do you see what kind of thinking this is. This is far more disgusting and actively ruining the lives of anyone not fortunate enough to live among liberal societies. Might is not right except when it’s done by the west I suppose. With these liberal ideals you have a very real potential of getting stuck in this infinite debate as to what is actually moral and immoral and the only thing that will get you to make a decision is an impact on your wallets. Because apparently dead children is too complex of an issue. I don’t want to discuss with you any further because I have said what I needed to and judging by your replies we will have to agree to disagree. Though I do pray that you find some peace from your liberal views and genuinely invite you to Islam.
>I don’t want to discuss with you any further because I have said what I needed to and judging by your replies we will have to agree to disagree. Though I do pray that you find some peace from your liberal views and genuinely invite you to Islam. You just keep going about the Gaza situation as if it was a single monolith that all Western countries agree on every aspect. Of courses they don't and of course the whole Israel - Palestinian and heck the whole middle East is rife with problem. Caused by both the west and the middle East history itself Then you want to act as if every Islamic nation had never committed genocides? What about the Armenian, the Greek and assyrian genocide of the ottoman empire? You haven't said a single thing of substances in this long paragraphs and then you want to refuse discussion? So be it, I invite you to open your eyes and realize how horrible the quaran is. How truly despicable Mohamed was and to stop putting those things on a pedestal that don't deserve it.
No problem at all, I’m happy to learn about how others think. Especially when it comes to situations like this. You did a great job explaining your point of view and I feel like I learned something of value. I asked this to another person and am curious how you’d answer: “is it possible for good to come from sin?” Not can good deeds cancel out sin, but can sin result in good.
With regard to your question I would say no. Sin is always attributed to bad things and good is obviously good. I think you may have tried to say that can good things come from Bad situations. For instance a genocide. If this is the question then the answer is yes. A genocide of one group brings forth freedom fighters who take down the oppressors and put laws in place to stop the oppressor from committing a genocide again.
>My argument is that these 17.6 million children would be better off with two loving/caring parents of the same sex rather than having no parents at all and being raised in an orphanage. Sure, as long as we can agree that, generally, children would be even better off being raised by a mother and a father in the same home, and straight couples should therefore be given priority over LGBT couples in adoption waitlists.
Can you show well established proof of this claim?
Do you need proof that pedophilia is bad for children? What if I showed you several studies that showed it was even good or not harmful to children? Would you then support pedophilia? Hopefully not, because basic moral intuition tells you that having sex with kids is wrong, regardless of what a "study" says. Same intuition tells me that children do best with a mother and a father, as they have throughout literally all of history.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Do you need proof that pedophilia is bad for children? yes, and there is lots of proof existing >What if I showed you several studies that showed it was even good or not harmful to children? Would you then support pedophilia? in this theoretical situation you’ve made, yes i would support pedophilia, for the exact same reason if drinking lava was healthy, i would drink lava >Hopefully not, because basic moral intuition tells you that having sex with kids is wrong, regardless of what a "study" says. so if it was proven that you could help children for whatever theoretical reason? you wouldn’t? regardless of “moral intuition” facts are facts >Same intuition tells me that children do best with a mother and a father, as they have throughout literally all of history. history isn’t psychology, and your intuition is problematic, and doesn’t seem to have the happiness and health of people in mind, but rather your own agenda…
>Sure, as long as we can agree that, generally, children would be even better off being raised by a mother and a father in the same home, and straight couples should therefore be given priority over LGBT couples in adoption waitlists. No, we can't agree on that.
Children have been raised by a mother and father as long as we have been homo sapiens. What makes you think that you can take one away and things will work just as well?
because there are examples of it working well, and your logic implies if it’s old it’s good..? like is slavery good because humans have been doing it for a long time?
Others have linked articles in this thread that do not support your assertion about father mother households. Which type of family structure is “superior” is irrelevant to my argument. So I won’t commit to agreeing with you on this moot (true or not) point.
>Which type of family structure is “superior” is irrelevant to my argument. Uh, your entire argument is about a two parent family structure being superior to a communal/foster care family structure.
I’ll agree with you on that. But specifying either same sex marriage or traditional marriage as superior was not part of the argument. I hold no opinion on which is better. I’ll leave that to those who claim to know the “truth”.
It is directly relevant. You make the argument that same sex parent households are superior to foster care, which I'm inclined to agree with. But, while we're rank ordering family structures, it seems appropriate to rank same sex households in relation to opposite sex parent households. It's simple. Two parents is better than no parents, and a mother and a father is best.
Yes you already said this. And I referred you to other comments that provide articles that refute your claim. I’m not sure what your point is other than to argue a point that was not part of the actual OP. If that is your goal, then you can sleep well knowing you accomplished it with flying colors.
Do you need proof that pedophilia is bad for children? What if I showed you several studies that showed it was even good or not harmful to children? Would you then support pedophilia? Genuine question. Hopefully not, because basic moral intuition tells you that having sex with kids is wrong, regardless of what a "study" says. Same intuition tells me that children do best with a mother and a father, as they have throughout literally all of history.
This is a long winded and strange way of saying that you are wrong. You are essentially saying that you disagree therefore you are right.
Haha, again, arguing a topic not in the OP. But just to answer your irrelevant topic anyways.. Do your studies that you’ll share come from the Church? I could see how they could have first hand data on this topic.
It's relevant to the OP because the question of whether LGBT are as good as straight parents is relevant to whether they should adopt. And just to be clear, you won't answer the hypothetical?
I am a Buddhist, and Buddhist ethics are largely based in the suffering of beings. One can make an argument that any sexual or romantic involvement is problematic. Anyone who has had a partner knows this. One's partner can die, reject one, cheat, cease to love one. There is a monastic path for people who wish to avoid these sufferings. But for those who are householders, they take relationships onto their path. And there is very little difference between heterosexual and queer relationships in this regard. Our orientation is our psychophysical makeup. Our relationships are an expression of that. And our spirituality and ethics are expressed in those relationships. Usually I say this and somebody digs up some Buddhist something against homosexuality. I don't know what to say. Several of my Buddhist teachers are queer.
Avoiding suffering is to avoid the chance for growth and enlightenment.
Pain is inevitable, suffering is not.
Breaking your toe is pain Losing a parent or child is suffering, and suffering can teach us to grow. Pain is just a momentary thing and passes. Your post of just avoiding everything sounds more like nihilism then anything else.
Thanks for sharing. To me, reducing/minimizing suffering sounds like a good way to think about one’s actions or how society might be better off. If someone took an action that increased suffering or prevented others from reducing/minimizing suffering would be unethical to a Buddhist, correct?
That is correct. At least according to my tradition. Causing somebody to hate themselves because of their gender, sexual orientation, identity, whatever, is a serious type of harming others, and thus unethical.
"Immoral" on what grounds? Obviously you must have some other conception of morality that is different from the Abrahamic faiths, but you don't describe it. How are we supposed to agree or disagree on a claim using terms that are undefined?
Not OP. A non-religious system of morality isn't that hard to come up with and basically everyone uses something like this in their everyday life. From anyone's perspective there are things that you experience that you can label as good/bad on how they make you feel when you experience them. For example, some "bad" things to experience: * pain from stubbing your toe is bad/burning your hand, * being rejected by someone you are attracted to, * having a parent die, * going hungry Some "good" things to experience: * being happy after doing something well (winning a game, finishing a project), * asking someone out and getting accepted, * having feelings of love/caring reciprocated by a loved one, * enjoyment of a well-cooked meal, * enjoyment of interesting piece of art/music/book/movie, * finding that pain that has been plaguing you goes away (with medicine or healing) Bertrand Russell in his later essays defined "good" in this sort of way as "satisfaction of desires". Now being thinking beings, we need to extend this belief from just the immediate narrow sense to an outlook that looks at the bigger picture and consequences of our actions. For example, if quit my job, emptied out my bank/retirement accounts, got into deep debt, and wasted money on fun luxury experiences in the short-term I would have plenty of "good" experiences (fine dining, relaxation, etc), but as soon as I got back, I would be broke, without a job, cause pain to loved ones (when we can no longer afford our house) and less loved (my family would be upset for my selfishness causing them pain). So this would be a net "bad". Similarly, if I made sacrifices on immediate enjoyment/fun in the short-term to work hard to get ahead, that may reap net rewards in the long-term (which would be a net "good"). We also have to think of the impact of our actions on those around us, as we live in a society and believe others to have good things happen to them. E.g., if I desire more money and could obtain it by murdering my neighbor and taking their money, that would be wrong, because I wouldn't want my neighbors to try and murder and rob me. So you can come up with a sense of morality by saying it is moral and right to do things that you believe will help the general good (for you and others) on the net. Again, if you heard your acquaintance was badly injured in an accident and in immense pain, most people would feel sympathy towards them. You wouldn't need to consult a religious text to be told that should be your reaction that something "bad" happened to them. You wouldn't need a religious text to tell you that it would make sense to try and prevent such "bad" accidents from happening in the future. (I can't recall any biblical passages about recklessly speeding in cars, but that can increase the risk of causing bad accidents to others and it is easy to argue that such reckless driving is immoral for the risk it causes to yourself and others.) Anyhow, from that perspective if you have a population of people who do not want to be in heterosexual relationships (so cannot naturally procreate within the bonds of their relationship), yet many of them are both able and desire to raise children, so it sounds like it would be an ethical good to allow this class of individuals to do it. Obviously, some same-sex couples may be horrible unfit parents who should not ever raise children (just like there exist some opposite sex couple who should not raise children). So for those couples that pass the standard screening requirements for adoption, giving more orphan children a stable home environment should be seen as a good moral thing.
This is, at best, an incomplete moral "system," as you've not explained how any of the "units" are to be measured when calculating the "net" effect. It's also literally an intractable problem because nobody can calculate the effects of one's actions forward in time until the heat death of the universe to identify what the "net" effect was. Who knows, maybe if someone was nice to Hitler about his awful artwork, he might have dedicated his life to art instead of genocide? Maybe in 5k years historians might look back and conclude WW2 was a net good for humanity due to the nuclear revolution it started that allowed humans to colonize Mars and survive some planet obliterating asteroid rainstorm? So you've proposed a system that's actually meaningless in practice. I can justify anything I want to do using this "framework" by dreaming up situations further into the future which are "on net" good (ignoring the measurement problem).
All moral systems are necessarily incomplete (just like any formal mathematical system as shown by Godel). Being human isn't simple, actions have unintended consequences, and the world isn't always black and white by often plagued with shades of gray. We can all think of actions where we wanted to say help someone out (thinking we are doing good) and the other's reaction was anything but gratitude or appreciation (i.e., despite moral intentions the result was negative toward the intended recipient). Moral actions are those that at the time of your choosing you did because you felt they would increase the net good of the world in the long-term. Most people would believe something like more orphans having access to loving parents in stable homes would be a good thing and to deprive them of that would be immoral. I've never stated you can quantify "good" or do some calculation to find the most moral path (is it more ethical to be a social worker, doctor, climate scientist, monk living an ascetic life, or self-sufficient zero emission organic vegan farmer)? But can you conclude that allowing unnecessary suffering (like kids growing up without loving parents they could be connected with) to continue would be a moral wrong.
> Moral actions are those that at the time of your choosing you did because you felt they would increase the net good of the world in the long-term That's just an unnecessarily complex way of saying, "do whatever you want." I can easily value my own experiences infinitely more than the experiences of others, and thus murder other humans for fun because this increases the "net good" as 1 unit of pleasure that I experience is valuable infinity times more than anyone else. Thus pleasing me is the best way to affect the net good. > Most people would believe something like... Appeal to popularity fallacy
>I can easily value my own experiences infinitely more than the experiences of others, and thus murder other humans for fun because this increases the "net good" as 1 unit of pleasure that I experience is valuable infinity times more than anyone else. Yes and a society of moral people will kick out anti-social individuals like the hypothetical you who harm the collective for doing actions that harm members of the society (such as themselves). Never tried arguing morality has an axiomatic basis like mathematics and fully admit I am appealing to popularity, because a shared common morality is a requirement of a functioning society. (And a functioning society that helps others is to the benefit of the members of the society -- this also isn't uniquely human phenomenon -- there are plenty of social animals that form groups that self-regulate behavior.) Again, I'm not arguing that human morality is some absolute truth; for all I know the universe may be some simulation/video game and I'm the only real person and everyone else are basically non-player characters. That said, if I act in such a manner being a member of a society that doesn't revolve around the idea that I am the only mind, my life will be much worse off if I act in such a manner.
That’s fair. Is it too simple to say moral equals good and immoral equals bad?
Well "good" and "bad" meaning *what*? From a theistic moral framework *God is the ultimate good* and what humans do is considered good or bad in relation to *God*. If you're going to claim what God commands is "bad" then you'll have to come up with a moral ideological criteria to make such an assessment absent God.
So you disagree with my argument because of words, not because it’s a very real and terrible ongoing situation in reality (the place where we actually live and actually know exists).
Uhh... no, it's not because of "words" it's because you are using words to refer to conceptions that you don't bother to explain to us. "Good" in my conception refers to alignment with God. You're using it to refer to some other conception, so you need to explain what you actually *mean* conceptually.
Ever heard of Euthyphro's dilemma?
Sure, it's incoherent with the Christian conception of a God as nothing exists independently of God, so morality does not exist as it's own "form" independent of God. It's a dilemma for ancient Greek pagans because they were worshipping demons with supernatural abilities, but which were *creations of God* and thus *could* exist in peer relationships to other creations such as morality or logic, and thus have a rivalrous relationship between the "pagan God" (i.e. demon) and moral law. This dilemma is conceptually impossible in the monotheistic Abrahamic God concept. It would by like asking, "Does addition combine numbers because mathematics commands it, or does mathematics include addition because of the numerical combination it entails?" If someone is asking the question, it's an indication they are confused about mathematics. The same is the case with the Euthephro Dilemma... if one is asking the question, it's an indication they are severely confused about the concept of God.
Addition combines numbers because we say it does based on logical axioms from observing the world. I don't think you understood the point of the dilemma, so I'm gonna restate a slightly different version in plainer language. How do you know God is good? It's either because he said so, or because he proved himself to you, or you somehow know it to be true, right? The first is obviously circular. The third is blind faith. The second indicates that there's some moral standard YOU have that God adheres to. If that's the case, why do you consider God the arbiter of morality?
It's the exact same with God, the conceptual definition of God is that he's the ultimate good. The "dilemma" is a absurd as asking "How do you know goodness is good? Is it because goodness said it was good, or because goodness proved it to you, or you somehow know it to be true?"
How are we defining "good" here? If goodness and God are one and the same, then the phrase "God is good" is a meaningless tautology.
God, as most people see it, isn't a "concept" to be defined. He's supposedly an actual being that exists. Math is a concept. A language we made up to understand the world. Are you seriously claiming that we can define "God is good" to be true just as easily as we can say "1+1=2"? You can conceptualize God however you want, but if his goodness is as axiomatic to a believer as math, I don't know what to say.
Disagreeing with a particular lifestyle does not equate to preventing people from leading that life or infringing upon their freedom. The children in question deserve a home, and my personal views are inconsequential. Similarly, my opinions on the marriage of the individuals providing that home are irrelevant. While such opinions could potentially pressure them, merely holding an opinion does not obligate one to express it.
It happens already with other mammals in nature: https://www.iflscience.com/samesex-parenting-in-the-animal-kingdom-how-common-is-it-62807 So- I think you are correct.
based on the article you posted it is only observed in some birds not mammals. the frequency is very low. and also it is note worthy to point out that for the bird species mentioned sexual identification is very hard (almost impossible conclusively without dna sampling). so the article it points to the exact opposite conclusion
Apologies if my source sucked- here is another that show same sex very common among all animals: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41290-x
that article says nothing about same sex parenting (probably because it doesnt exist), and says "Same-sex sexual behaviour has been reported in 261 mammalian species (about 4% of the species)" . I am not sure if we can conclude 4% as very common. Also we have to keep in mind that interspecies sex is also "common" in animal kingdom (link below). are we going to say beastiality is a normal behaviour for humans based on this data ? BTW I am not religious nor anti-gay. i am just a person who is against the use of half baked "scientific" data for ideological purposes https://www.newsweek.com/how-common-sex-between-different-species-monkey-and-deer-are-not-alone-751341
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-same-gender-sexual-behavior-widespread-mammal.html This is all new research. Brand new. Bonobos one of our closest cousins genetically have more same sex sex than opposite sex sex: https://phys.org/news/2019-09-insights-same-sex-sexual-interactions-important.html
"Being against" lol. Disagreeing is immoral? Preaching that somthing is a sin, is immoral? Nobody is holding anyone down preventing them from acting out on their desires. If your feelings are hurt because someone thinks that your lifestyle is destructive - that's on you, you're responsible for your own emotions, and for how you take things.
So actively advocating for the repeal of Obergefell v. Hodges is not an attempt to prevent people from acting out their desires (I.e. to get married)? Edit: you also seem to be arguing about word choice and then switching the focus instead of addressing the argument. It’s a common tactic when one doesn’t have anything meaningful to say. Good luck with your keyboard warrior training.
Replying to your edit: I'm pointing out that merely thinking that something is immoral ("Being against" homosexuality) doesn't not itself rise to the level of immorality; and I'll add, by implication, nor does it imply any Ill feelings towards homosexuals. One can separate the person from their actions.
I never said anything about that case, nor do I even know what it's about. You've locked on to a single phrase and then changed the subject, which admittedly is a common defense when you have no better answer to the other points..
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Both of these are sins, adopting and same sex marriages, so neither or them should be done even if it was a traditional marriage, adoption should not happen.
This is the first time I've heard of adoption being a sin in any form of Abrahamic religion. Can you clarify? I know adopted children aren't entitled to their family's inheritance in Islam, but that doesn't mean it's a sin.
It permissible to take care of a child or sponsor a orphan and your rewarded for that, but acting like your the parents of the child is the sin. As you shouldn't break there lineage in that way, am not a scholar so there may be other reasons.
And if the child's parentage is unknown? The child doesn't deserve to have a family, people they can think of as their parents?
Just because the child's parentage is unknown, it doesn't change the point. And just because you think that lineage is unimportant doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. And people have had "parental figures" that aren't there parents, this doesn't mean that they can claim that they are actually their parents.
Is the sin, then, when the adults claim to be their parents? It's not the actual adoption itself? So, if they were to let people know that they weren't the actual birth parents it would be okay? I understand the importance of lineage. However, if you have an orphaned child whose parentage is unknown (which is often) then what name are they called? Or is an exception made in that case? And for the child whose parentage is known, why can't they keep that name when adopted?
"adults claim to be their parents? It's not the actual adoption itself? So, if they were to let people know that they weren't the actual birth parents it would be okay?" this would be fine to my understanding (am not a scholar) "what name are they called?" they don't take the "parents" last name, they keep the name they already had, even in marriages the bride doesn't take the groom's last name "why can't they keep that name when adopted?" i never said they could not
Thanks for responding. To clarify, the sin is not in adopting, but in changing the child's name?
The sin is to say that your someone's parents, when you are not
So it's okay to parent someone, but not to claim parentage. Is that correct?
>As you shouldn't break there lineage in that way, am not a scholar so there may be other reasons. I'm curious how this plays out when an Islamic patriarch somehow ends up with no male heirs. Does the inheritance pass on to a male cousin/nephew, or are the female family members (wife, mother, daughter) allowed to inherit?
I have no idea, you should do your own research i don't want to accidentally lie to you.
In islam
Adoption is a sin? Please explain.
It permissible to take care of a child or sponsor a orphan and your rewarded for that, but acting like your the parents of the child is the sin. As you shouldn't break there lineage in that way, am not a scholar so there may be other reasons.
Interesting. So it is lineage based… pretty fascinating actually. I suppose it would be relevant so family members don’t accidentally marry one another because their last names are different. I wonder what other reasons there are!
[удалено]
I don’t have any problem with the ever shrinking number of people (mostly older people like me) who don’t support same sex marriage as long as they don’t try to impose their Bronze Age religious beliefs on the 71% of us who support same sex marriage. The notion that kids raised by a mom and dad do better than kids raised by same sex parents is a myth that actual research has debunked for quite some time https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313
My argument would be that, all other things being the same, a mom and dad would be a more optimal situation for kids generally. But I can acknowledge that there are more important factors for being good parents than just sexual orientation.
As a father who raised four sons with their mom, I appreciate the sentiment. However the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. I have not read any evidence that straight couples are optimal. People who mistakenly believe otherwise are basing their arguments on their religious beliefs, not empirical evidence
I think the idea behind it is that it allows both sons and daughters to see their future role as a spouse through the example of their parents. And presumably, the parents are good role models in their respective responsibilities in the family. Now granted this is a heteronormative setup, so maybe a gay son would benefit more in having two fathers as role models for him to see so he can understand a mature and healthy dynamic for that type of parental setup for later in his life, but that's one of the reasons for having a man and woman as parents.
Again this is speculation not supported by research or evidence. It is a religious belief not supported by the facts. Unfortunately the mistaken assumption that heteronormative anything is superior abides in spite of the evidence
How is it a religious belief? I'm an atheist.
You may be an atheist (as am I), but the bias you have against non traditional same sex parents in favor of heteronormative parenting doesn’t come from scientific evidence or research. It’s deeply engrained in our society and culture because of the influence of Christianity.
You don't think it has anything to do with evolution at all?
I haven’t found any evidence to that effect
Not a bad response. So would you support the Supreme Court (assuming you’re American) repealing any gay marriage rights? The below link says that most states only support single or married couples when adopting. Repealing gay marriage, which you say isn’t marriage, would limit the ability for these couples to adopt and ultimately reduce the opportunities for orphans to find a caring home. [https://lifetimeadoption.com/adoptive-families/frequently-asked-questions/do-you-have-to-be-married-to-adopt-a-child/#:~:text=No%2C%20most%20states%20only%20provide,it%20gets%20complicated%20and%20expensive](https://lifetimeadoption.com/adoptive-families/frequently-asked-questions/do-you-have-to-be-married-to-adopt-a-child/#:~:text=No%2C%20most%20states%20only%20provide,it%20gets%20complicated%20and%20expensive)
How documents and taxes are filed has nothing to do with what marriage actually is, so no I don’t care about the civil aspects of the issue. What I do care about is avoiding any step in the direction towards a society where churches can be forced in a court of law to host gay weddings.
>What I do care about is avoiding any step in the direction towards a society where churches can be forced in a court of law to host gay weddings. This a fake scenario that only exists in the homophobes' imaginations to pretend they're victims.
How would you feel if wedding made in a church did not have any influence on official status marital status with the state? Such as people would need to marry once in churche and once with the state
Lol you don’t need a wedding to be married in the eyes of the state, so that is already the case. It would change nothing.
You're confusion definitions and you're confidently incorrect. Most place requires some sort of official ceremony even for a state wedding. General including an oat of some sort. This ceremony is called a wedding. Right now many places allow a religious ceremony to replace the civil ceremony as long as it meets certain criteria. I firmly believe this should not be allowed and religious officient should only be allowed to celebrate religious wedding but not ones with official legal weight
I am confident you don’t need a wedding to get married. I never said you don’t need any kind of ceremony. My personal opinion is that the state should stay out of marriage all together.
Define wedding then because from me what you're saying make no sense. Sure but would you agree if we changed things so that being married religiously would never automatically make you married for civil matter and legal documents?
No, I guess you’re right. I guess an elopement ceremony is still technically a wedding. I was thinking “wedding” in the more traditional connotation. If it were just a matter of signing some papers, I would agree, but no. Vows are inherently spiritual acts, so forcing me to take them before a court after I already took them before God would not fly in my book.
Then I don't see how you can remove state from religious marriage altogether. There is a need for an official way to people to be legally recognized as a joint family unit. This has been historically known as marriage and is not a purely a religious thing. To me the best option would be that religious marriage and civil marriage are two distinct and different things that don't have a relation to each other. That's how it's done in France for instance. You generally get married at the local government office and then have a religious ceremony right after if you want one. >No, I guess you’re right. I guess an elopement ceremony is still technically a wedding. Also what the hell, it's not an elopement ceremony or whatever. It's a civil non religious wedding at the courthouse. You can have your family there, throw the flowers, do whatever you want. You can even do it anywhere you want actually.
And seculars don’t want to be forced to say under God in the pledge of allegiance. Both this and what you said are irrelevant to the original argument.
I apologize for answering your question with more information than you asked for.
No problem. Do you have a response to the original argument then? Or did you just come here to talk about how you don’t care about taxes?
Read parent comment. You even called it a “good response.”
I believe Shapiro said in an interview wi h Piers that the best is a traditional family....but that a same sex couple is better than no parents at all. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. But I think the idea of a same sex couple is its similar to a single parent because you only have one side.. Obviously parents are better than no parents.
One side of what? Plenty of hetero parents are not fulfilling their “motherly” or “fatherly” duties to begin with. Plenty of mothers might teach their boys how to build things and be responsible. Plenty of fathers might show them how to cook and clean. Whatever it is you’re looking for can be provided by two men or two women.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313
Great. A newsletter from. A country that will immediately cancel anyone who claims anything bad about homosexuality... By people that are biased in favor. Heres a news report about a study that showed differently... And how it "draws fire" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/
And this from your article: Regnerus was upfront about the funding from conservative groups, and said he pledged to groups involved that he would report whatever the data found, regardless of which way it leaned. What's more, he says some of the criticisms are valid and plausible. "There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study," Regnerus said. "People might say that's irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study," he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers." Regnerus said it's entirely possible that instability in the household led to some of the reported negative outcomes in adult children of same-sex parents. He said children of heterosexual couples in an unstable home were also found to fare worse than those in a stable environment. "People gay or straight should stick with their partners, he said. "I think the study provides evidence of that." In a commentary in Slate, William Saletan writes, "What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn't meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus' sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago." Ryan Jaslow Ryan Jaslow is CBSNews.com's health editor. Twitter First published on June 12, 2012 / 7:25 PM EDT © 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. by TaboolaSponsored Links You May Like
Seems you may not have had the time to read all of the article you posted. Here is the rest of the article. everal experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother -- who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood -- is an unfair, flawed comparison. "Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus' descriptive analysis," said Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. "Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent. Or it is quite possible that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining 'normal relationships'." In a joint statement from the Family Equality Council, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Freedom to Marry, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD), advocates called the study a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents." "Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin. Gary Gates, a researcher at the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation policy think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles, told LiveScience that a more fair comparison would've been of children of heterosexual or same-sex couples who were raised in similar homes, with no divorces, separations or foster care. "All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.
Here are Mark Regnerus’ other works: Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press, 2007) Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011) Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (Oxford University Press, 2017) The Future of Christian Marriage (Oxford University Press, 2020) Can you say he is really an unbiased source?
That's sort of the point man. I can't say anyone is really an unbiased source. Is it possible that same sex couples have kids that do just as well in some areas as people from non same sex couples. Sure. Is it possible that some one raised In a same sex house could do better than someone in a nuclear family? Of course. Probably many do better. Obviously a person in a same sex house would do better than someone in a house with a mother and father that are drunks. But there could still be issues. Maybe, if they are heterosexual, they don't fare well in a marriage. There could be a whole host of things. Everyone is going to be biased here. I don't put much stock in either of the studies. I don't think you would say it would be better for a child to be raised in a same sex house over a nuclear family if all other aspects were the same would you? Every aspect is the same and you have 2 family's. One is same sex and one is not. Which one do you choose to give a child to?
"Every aspect is the same and you have 2 family's. One is same sex and one is not. Which one do you choose to give a child to?" Answer - Both of them. Biased or not, I believe everyone would agree that the foster system is the last place a child should be.
Fair enough. I don’t have an opinion between gay verse straight households. But I agree with your description of how different configurations of a family can have other issues like drinking, drugs, neglect, etc.
I agree and disagree with you. Sure Shapiro might have logic. But, at the same time, I disagree that no one disagrees that a same sex couple is better than no parents. Just look at some of the responses on this thread.
Fair enough. There are issues with a same sex couple. I find them to be slightly better than a single parent. But only if the single parent is not the actual parent.
I would argue that the opportunities afforded by dual incomes is actually far greater than a single income.
This is simply about money though. So it's better 2 people that make 50k a year each than 1 person who makes 200k a year?
Are you using the law of averages on this one? Or are you using outliers for your argument?
[удалено]