The Forum > Article Comments > Whose rights are they anyway? The children's? > Comments
Whose rights are they anyway? The children's? : Comments
By Bill Muehlenberg, published 3/9/2010Same s*x adoption. Are children just guinea pigs in this radical social experiment?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- ...
- 20
- 21
- 22
-
- All
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 5 September 2010 9:21:05 AM
| |
Vile insulting article to any who are not fundamentalist christian (or Muslim - they hold similar beliefs about gays and women).
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2997472.htm >> Desiderata Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. Max Ehrmann, 1927 << Posted by Severin, Sunday, 5 September 2010 11:47:44 AM
| |
Nature decided that, for the benefit of the human species, a man and a woman alone should procreate and care for their children. Nature firmly closed the door on two women or two men procreating.
It seems that nature got it right and that humans, by trying to rewrite the rule book to suit the demands of a fringe group, are barking up the wrong tree. Who are we to argue with or interfere with nature? Posted by David G, Sunday, 5 September 2010 12:26:56 PM
| |
David G
I guess the term "extended family" is completely lost on you. In addition the nuclear family (mum, dad & genetically related kids) is a recent cultural phenomenon - in the past, kids were cared for by relatives (who may or may not be straight) while mum and dad tends the fields or worked in other industries such as weaving, pottery. As for the wealthy they had butlers and nannies - who may or may not have been straight. And still no-one has responded to the issue that biological parents are giving birth to gays! Ban opposite sex marriage - that'll fix 'em. Posted by Johnny Rotten, Sunday, 5 September 2010 12:54:16 PM
| |
David G at what point do you decide that you have reached the right balance between nature and interference?
The fact that you appear to be using a computer to post to an internet forum seems to suggest that you are not living wild and naked in the bush somewhere. So you have accepted some variation from nauture. Not even a Quaker who has decided that perfect balance was achieved sometime before the invention of the motor car. Do you take a pain killer if you are in serious pain? Would you want a loved one to see a doctor about that worrying lump or does the imperative not "to argue with or interfere with nature" override such petty concerns as your own enjoyment of life or the life of a loved one? Do you still content that we should not argue with or interfere with nature? R0bert Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 5 September 2010 1:41:48 PM
| |
Reading through this thread, I get a feeling from the religous right "christians", that they consider gay people as unaceptable members of the community.
Would those same said people accept, that a child is an individual innocent person from birth, that they do not have ownership of that child, other than to ensure the safe and loving upbringing of the child. That to indocrinate the child with ones own ideology and dogma, is tantamount to child abuse. I as gay person having practising christian parents, have received nought but love from them and my siblings, and they themselves are disturbed by the vitriolic comments towards gay people, by so called "christians". May your god forgive you, for your hateful attitude towards your fellow beings. Posted by Kipp, Sunday, 5 September 2010 1:43:15 PM
|
Just let people be.