Two mommies is 'too many,' Dobson writes in Time column

B

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Pointing to biblical truth, social science and intuition, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson asserts in the latest issue of Time magazine that children are better off with a mother and a father and that society should avoid the "untested" and "far-reaching social experiment" of homosexual parenting...

Cont'd
 
really, there is not much difference between men and women, and those who say there is have an agenda... men have short hair, women have long hair, men have leg hair, women shave theirs off, men dont usually wear makeup, a woman who doesn't must be a lezzie, or a xtian... there's men who act like women, theres women who act like men- beyond the obvious differences in the genital region, there is not much difference between men and women, and what we perceive to be gender is a social construct... we have a lil baby girl and we put her in a cutesy pink skirt and we give them dolls and put ribbons in their hair, while we deliberately put lil boys in blue and give them soldiers and guns...girls are thought to be made of sugar and spice and all things nice, boys are made of frogs and snails and puppy dogs tails, yet this is not really how it is... I know a few dykes who look and act like men, they wear mens clothes, they drink pints of beer, they sit with their legs spread, short hair, no make up, they sit in the pub talking in a crude manner about their sexual exploits- much like white heterosexual males of the same social class do... I know a few queer men who are are the opposite of masculine- they wear pink scarfs and eyeliner and drink "girls" drinks and gossip and bitch and want to talk about love and long term relationships and listen to dolly parton... both the hetero's and the homo's are playing a role, and who can say that its not okay for a woman to be like a man, and a man like a woman...

as you pointed out, not many people live in a nuclear family of mommy and daddy and 2.4 children with a white picket fence and good schools- better to have two adults who love u and nurture u than have nobody at all...

as Lorenz found with his ducks, the baby duck who he hatched didnt see him as Dr Lorenz, the duck opened its little duck eyes and said- hello mommie... as bowlby pointed out, yes, to be brought up by a loving mother is the best thing for a child- and yet- whether the mother is a man or a woman or the birth mother or a foster mother or two mothers doesnt matter one bit- what matters is the bond itself, and that the child is loved unconditionally and knows that it is treasured... yes, kids who have 2 moms or two dads are slightly disadvantaged- but thats only because they are likely to get bullied because daft ppl with hidden agendas like ur man in the Times there comes out with ammunition for the homophobes...
 
Francis king said:
really, there is not much difference between men and women, and those who say there is have an agenda... men have short hair, women have long hair, men have leg hair, women shave theirs off, men dont usually wear makeup, a woman who doesn't must be a lezzie, or a xtian... there's men who act like women, theres women who act like men- beyond the obvious differences in the genital region, there is not much difference between men and women, and what we perceive to be gender is a social construct... we have a lil baby girl and we put her in a cutesy pink skirt and we give them dolls and put ribbons in their hair, while we deliberately put lil boys in blue and give them soldiers and guns...girls are thought to be made of sugar and spice and all things nice, boys are made of frogs and snails and puppy dogs tails, yet this is not really how it is... I know a few dykes who look and act like men, they wear mens clothes, they drink pints of beer, they sit with their legs spread, short hair, no make up, they sit in the pub talking in a crude manner about their sexual exploits- much like white heterosexual males of the same social class do... I know a few queer men who are are the opposite of masculine- they wear pink scarfs and eyeliner and drink "girls" drinks and gossip and bitch and want to talk about love and long term relationships and listen to dolly parton... both the hetero's and the homo's are playing a role, and who can say that its not okay for a woman to be like a man, and a man like a woman...

as you pointed out, not many people live in a nuclear family of mommy and daddy and 2.4 children with a white picket fence and good schools- better to have two adults who love u and nurture u than have nobody at all...

as Lorenz found with his ducks, the baby duck who he hatched didnt see him as Dr Lorenz, the duck opened its little duck eyes and said- hello mommie... as bowlby pointed out, yes, to be brought up by a loving mother is the best thing for a child- and yet- whether the mother is a man or a woman or the birth mother or a foster mother or two mothers doesnt matter one bit- what matters is the bond itself, and that the child is loved unconditionally and knows that it is treasured... yes, kids who have 2 moms or two dads are slightly disadvantaged- but thats only because they are likely to get bullied because daft ppl with hidden agendas like ur man in the Times there comes out with ammunition for the homophobes...
Click to expand...
Or maybe some people don't realize that men and women are very different in how they are made up genetically, what horomones dominate their makeup, how they think, how they feel, and how they deal with things.

Dr. Dobson is a world renown Psychologist and Psychiatrist, who happens to be a minister and radio show host on a program called "Focus on the Family"

The "two mommies" he is referring to are not the mother and grandmother type relationship that might share in rearing a child, but the sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender, that are attempting to raise a child.

Children do not learn by listening, but rather by observation. Same sex couples give off conflicting signals with those that are ingrained in the human being from birth. I happen to know of several young men who can't stand the concept of "two mommies" they had to grow up with, to the point where they refuse to associate with the adults that raised them. They confessed to feeling shorted, cheated, resentful and angry. They also went to great lengths to find for themselves a "father figure" that they could look up to and who gave them a sense of balance in their perspective on life.

Then again there may be many others who could care less...

And I'm not so sure you have credentials enough to declare such professional people as being "daft", simply because they do not agree with what you consider as correct and/or normal.

v/r

Joshua
 
The best thing for a kid is to born as far away as possible from poor and ignorant. Sure there are a lot of Horatio Alger-ish stories, and we have an entire wing of our mythology devoted to that, but the truth is that lots of kids, most kids in fact, grow up in less than ideal circumstances. Given the choice between two mommies and having to suck up insects out of a sidewalk crack with a straw for something to eat as I observed one little girl in Kenya doing...well, you know. I do think that the few lucky kids with a mommy and daddy who stay married and love each other have an advantage that supercedes economic class bounderies. They're the lucky ones. But having lesbian folks isn't really that big of a deal compared to all the other handicaps kids face in becoming healthy, well adjusted people.

Chris
 
I agree that starvation and even the stupid stuff society throws at children (like pornography) are definitely worse than lesbian parents. But nobody is denying that lack of food or being exposed to inappropriate things are definitely detrimental. However, I have heard people say that men are only biologically necessary and male and female are just alike except for a few aesthetic differences. (see above)

Studies have shown that having a father (or a consistent male to look up to) is a child’s initial impression of God. While nobody argues that a mother is important, it has been shown that a father is as important, if not more so.
 
i don't think this is about comparing gay parents vs. starvation or some other social ill to see which is worse, this is about gay parents in and of itself and the statistics that show kids fare better growing up in a traditional male and female parent family, and of course the repurcussions by parents continuing to disobey god and its ripple effect.
 
Perfect world scenario, a daddy and mommy beats two daddies or two mommies. In our imperfect world there are abusive situations where mother and father are present. A much bigger problem than same-sex parents is live-in heterosexual boyfriends who are not the father of the childeren in the home.

Chris
 
My opinion is that women are not just men who shave, speak with higher voices, and wear heels.

Yes, culture definitely plays on the biological differences between men and women to give us our gender (as opposed to the biological difference itself- our sex), but there are sexual differences that go beyond different genitalia. The differences in hormonal cycles have an impact, and there are significant strengths and weaknesses of each sex as well. For example, men typically have more brute strength, but their health is more fragile than women.

Culture can do almost anything with the sexes (in terms of roles) but it rarely does. There are traditional cultures in which women are hunters of large game, but they are very, very rare. Why should that be surprising? Before the days of formula, women had to nurse children for about four years before weaning. Pretty hard to sneak up on game and then run after them when you're carrying around a two-year-old. It's not that men can't do what women do and vice versa, it's that the biological differences do lend themselves better to some social arrangements than others.

Many cultures do not have the nuclear family arrangement, so dad may not be in the picture anyway. However, it is very rare that the family has no male role model at all. In many cultures, women live with their birth families for their entire lives (it's held together by grandma, mom, aunts, sisters) but even if their husband/father of their kids is not around, the kids have uncles, older male cousins, and grandfather to hang out with. In many cultures where men and women live separately (segregated by sex) or men are often off at war, male children are moved to the "men's house" at or before puberty to receive instruction from other men.

I think that the human pattern that is optimal is for children to have strong female and male role models, be they grandparents, aunts and uncles, mom and dad, or close family friends. I don't think it has much to do with their understanding of God (since many cultures see God as genderless or female anyway) but it is awfully important for their understanding of how to be a proper man or woman in their own culture, and to see how men and women interact.

That said, I completely disagree with barring gay couples from adopting. While the optimal situation may be having both a mother and father around, the reality is that one parent or "two mommies" is better than none at all. There are so many children in this world that are fending for themselves on the streets or in overcrowded orphanages, and I think it is incredibly cruel to not give them the chance to improve their situation by allowing gay couples to adopt. Whether or not it is optimal isn't the question- it's definitely better than the alternative of no loving parents at all.

Furthermore, many gay couples are willing to adopt children that have special needs that heterosexual couples won't adopt- the children who were born with drug dependencies or diseases or mental problems. I think that's an amazing gift they are giving those kids, and one that most "mommy and daddy" families will not consider. Lots of "mommy and daddy" families won't consider adoption, period. I'll try to avoid my rant about the number of people who fight for "pro-life" and "adoption for hetero couples only" that won't even consider adopting a needy child themselves and only want "their own" kids.

Very few children grow up in an optimal environment anyway. In the States, it is incredibly common for female children to be molested, many children are almost entirely ignored by their parents, and I personally know of dozens of people my age that wish they hadn't known their father at all, since their male role model was abusive, distant, and uncaring.

Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than any other sins are, and we don't seem to be complaining about children living with parents who are gluttons, or who lie or cheat (a large percentage of parents in the US are now encouraging their children to cheat on exams), or who are selfish and don't give to the poor as Christ commanded. We pick on homosexual people- on that particular sin- as somehow more detrimental than all the others to kids. But that simply is not true. It may be detrimental, but so are the myriad other sins that we see in US families, so I don't know why we should pick only one on which to discriminate.

What makes a great environment for children is not just the gender and number of parents, or their sexual orientation. It is a loving, stable family. And that is a rare thing these days.

So, my bottom line is that what is best is not always what is available. I'd rather see kids go to a loving home of some sort than to have no parents at all and wind up as street children or prostitutes, which many of them do. All I can say is that I'd far prefer a child having to deal with having homosexual parents than being alone in the world and fending for him- or herself.
 
Humanism:
1.) A variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

2.) A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
Humanism:
1.) A variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

2.) A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Click to expand...

Is this in response to my post, or just in general?

I don't think reason, science, and human fulfillment is antithetical to religion or God.

Science has only deepened my faith in God. Reason is a God-given trait to humans to help us come to Him. We can misuse it (just as we misuse other gifts from Him), but that is a problem with us, not reason itself.

As a Christian, I believe human fulfillment in the natural world is a result of our relationship with Christ. We become truly fulfilled here because we are truly fulfilled spiritually. The two go hand in hand; the one flows from the other.

I don't reject religious beliefs either. I don't agree with every religious belief (indeed, no one does), but I have plenty of religious beliefs.

I think religion is partly about humans and their values, capacities, and worth... and how that is related to God's values, capacities, and worth.

And I know I'm not alone on this one. Just this past week I had a long conversation with a department chair at a Baptist university (who is also a pastor) on this topic. There are more Christian scientists than a lot of people think.
 
This world is amazing! We don't even know whats wrong anymore. We're so desensitized from truth and have conformed so much to culture and fads, that the immutable truth that stood firm throughout the ages are now considered intolerant and wrong. The arrogance of this present generation is amazing to me. We scoff at the wisdom of past generations and consider people who held to nonconforming truths to be misguided souls who have been repressed by their religions and their understanding of morality. Just thirty years ago Elvis shaking his pelvis was considered porn. Today, we laugh at that generations "ignorance" and delight in our new found understanding of tolerance and what it means to be "free." Yesterday's generation pushed the envelope of what was considered taboo and today's generation consider what was taboo to be the norm. There's no understanding of real truth and everything has become relative. I hear learned scholars declare "No truth is absolute, except for the truth that no truth is absolute" and others clap and shake their heads in agreement. The norm is lying, porn is thriving, and most kids have sex before their driving. This is our generation: Its cold and cruel and people love it! The sad thing about all this is, people choose to suppress the truth in order that they may do what they want and like and the end result is that God gives them over to a depraved mind that they will. In Romans 1 the Apostle Paul talks about homosexuals who choose to deny the obvious truth of man and woman being made for each other and that because they choose to believe a lie, God gave them over to depraved minds to do things they ought not do - namely, perform the homosexual acts. Their acts is their punishment and they don't even know it. Its a scary thought to have God give you over to a depraved mind! The end result is you will not even know; you'll continue to sin and enjoy it, all the while saying that you love God and believing you are His child. I pray God would give us mercy and soften our harden hearts.












 
Francis king said:
call urselves xtians...man.... so much hatred, so much angst... what happenned to the good news?
Click to expand...

We're not Xmen...but then maybe we are...better watch out...as far as the Good News, it's still there. Only problem is that it is no longer "politically correct". Can't talk about it...:eek:

The hatred by the way is yours, not ours...don't mistake the two. But that too is ok. We can deal with that.

Merry Christmas FK.

v/r

Joshua
 
path_of_one said:
I don't think reason, science, and human fulfillment is antithetical to religion or God.

Science has only deepened my faith in God. Reason is a God-given trait to humans to help us come to Him. We can misuse it (just as we misuse other gifts from Him), but that is a problem with us, not reason itself.

As a Christian, I believe human fulfillment in the natural world is a result of our relationship with Christ. We become truly fulfilled here because we are truly fulfilled spiritually. The two go hand in hand; the one flows from the other.

I don't reject religious beliefs either. I don't agree with every religious belief (indeed, no one does), but I have plenty of religious beliefs.

I think religion is partly about humans and their values, capacities, and worth... and how that is related to God's values, capacities, and worth.

And I know I'm not alone on this one. Just this past week I had a long conversation with a department chair at a Baptist university (who is also a pastor) on this topic. There are more Christian scientists than a lot of people think.
Click to expand...

What do you think being a Christian is about? There is a line drawn by spiritual formation that presents discipleship to Jesus Christ as the greatest opportunity that individual human beings have in life to to solve spiritual problems. Spitritual fulfillment is not the result, it is an on going process. True fulfillment will not occur until the Second Coming.

How much of it is related to God's values, capacities, and worth?The answer is all.

There are no TRUE Christian fence sitters. Sorry to say it that way. I was involved in an inter-faith ministry for quite a while. It wasn't until I was baptized into the family of God and I started faithfully studying God's Word that my heart really recieved the truth. I will never look back.
You are DEFINITELY not alone in your thinking, but that doesn't mean much...

Could you tell me more about this converation with a department chair at a Baptist university? What department?

You do NOT mean "Christian Science", right?
 
pattimax said:
What do you think being a Christian is about? There is a line drawn by spiritual formation that presents discipleship to Jesus Christ as the greatest opportunity that individual human beings have in life to to solve spiritual problems. Spitritual fulfillment is not the result, it is an on going process. True fulfillment will not occur until the Second Coming.

How much of it is related to God's values, capacities, and worth?The answer is all.

There are no TRUE Christian fence sitters. Sorry to say it that way. I was involved in an inter-faith ministry for quite a while. It wasn't until I was baptized into the family of God and I started faithfully studying God's Word that my heart really recieved the truth. I will never look back.
You are DEFINITELY not alone in your thinking, but that doesn't mean much...

Could you tell me more about this converation with a department chair at a Baptist university? What department?

You do NOT mean "Christian Science", right?
Click to expand...

I think Path has a better handle on Christianity than given credit for. In a whirlwind world where everyone has some extreme version of how Christ should be, Path merely expresses how Christ affects Path. Can't attack one who expresses how they are affected.

And no, Path does not mean Christian Science.
 
Quahom1 said:
I think Path has a better handle on Christianity than given credit for. In a whirlwind world where everyone has some extreme version of how Christ should be, Path merely expresses how Christ affects Path. Can't attack one who expresses how they are affected.

And no, Path does not mean Christian Science.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I was not attacking.

But in hindsight, while these views are popular with the culture, I am very grateful that my views changed...

path_of_one:
"I don't reject religious beliefs either. I don't agree with every religious belief (indeed, no one does), but I have plenty of religious beliefs.

I think religion is partly about humans and their values, capacities, and worth... and how that is related to God's values, capacities, and worth."

(Just making sure about the Christian Science thing.)
 
what would jesus do? I saw this on a wrist band, a few years ago, everyone has seen it... so, what would jesus do? would jesus care if u were gay? would he condemn u and turn away from u becuase u was a homo?

as far as i can see, jesus wasn't a queer basher... so why are a lot of ppl who say they love christ appear unable to extend that love to gays? It's a shame that the message of liberation and brotherhood which jesus gave us all has become some peverse discriminatory institution, where jesus only loves the saved, and not the sinner, where so many types of love are unacceptable, where ppl focus on silly sins, homosexuality and masturbation, rather than the big ones, the starving children, the AIDs epidemic, the war on terror, where ppl who say they know jesus don't know him at all...

I was walking through town one day, and there was a street preacher, with a megaphone, and he was shouting- jesus loves u, and all u homosexuals will burn in hell, in the same breath, and I thought to myself....

what if I was a young lad, walking past now, who was struggling with his sexual orientation? what if he was already hating himself for fancying other boys, what if he was so confused and messed up and felt so bad that he was depressed and was thinking about suicide? what if he heard that man, with his megaphone and went and threw himself off a multistorey carpark? what if? would the man with the megaphone be doing the work of god?

jesus loves u (except if ur gay)

doesn't work for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top