DiscussMormonism.com

Gazelam wrote:I apparently was on a different wavelength to the conversation. My apologies.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a homosexual couple raising a child. I think it is damaging to a childs development in that they will be raised to view deviant behavior as something normal.

On the other hand, if they have it withen their hearts to take on a special needs child and be their caregiver, then I would say individual care is a greater good than the care a "system" could provide.

Wonderful! You have restored my faith in you and your good will to children!

I feel my tounge thickening up and my windpipe swelling shut choking that out though.

I'm trained/certified/delegated to administer an Epi-pen. Just say the word and I'll smack it right into your thigh!

;-)

Jersey Girl wrote:

Gazelam wrote:I apparently was on a different wavelength to the conversation. My apologies.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a homosexual couple raising a child. I think it is damaging to a childs development in that they will be raised to view deviant behavior as something normal.

On the other hand, if they have it withen their hearts to take on a special needs child and be their caregiver, then I would say individual care is a greater good than the care a "system" could provide.

Wonderful! You have restored my faith in you and your good will to children!

I feel my tounge thickening up and my windpipe swelling shut choking that out though.

I'm trained/certified/delegated to administer an Epi-pen. Just say the word and I'll smack it right into your thigh!

;-)

And all it took was three women with three large clubs! Imagine that!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/24921/30-days ... -parenting

Some of you may have already watched this episode. For me, thiis kind of puts things in perspective.

Bolstering your prejudice views within the chapel walls is a safe bet. Its an easy environment to make a statement like, "children need a mommy and a daddy". No one will mention the multitudes of children who remain in the social services system. Nobody will offer that gay couples could be a godsend to children who don't currently have parents to call their own.

I think church members find themselves in a tortured position once they leave the sanctuary of the lds community. This lady in the video probably wishes she could have a "do-over" and reconsider having her views aired nationally. How could you not be embarrassed?

JohnStuartMill wrote: I'm extremely skeptical that anybody here was under the mistaken impression that no gay person has ever sexually abused a child.

I wasn't under that impression. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if homosexuals are statistically more likely to abuse kids. I doubt they are, but, again, that doesn't mean qualified, well-screened homosexual couples should be barred from adopting children.

I consider the desire to ban all homosexuals from adopting children base bigotry. I can only speak from personal experience, but most of the folks I know who believe homosexuals shouldn't adopt children believe that gays choose to be gay. I don't believe that is the case. Some folks may choose "gayness" but I doubt they would be the norm. Whatever the cause of homosexuality, I don't believe it a choice in the vast majority of cases.

Additionally, I find it ironic that most of the folks I know personally who think gayness is a choice and who believe that gays shouldn't have the right to adopt are folks who cannot get their own lives together. Most of those folks are men. I am, unfortunately, related to some of them. They make bad choices--choices that hurt not only themselves, but others. What hypocrites! They disdain gays for supposedly making the choice to be gay, but all the while they are really the ones making destructive, irresponsible choices.

I'm sure the small sampling of men I know who believe gays choose to be gay aren't representative of all men who believe that way, just as the small number of gays who abuse children aren't representative of all gays. Still, I do think those individuals whose personal choices are extremely destructive have no room to criticize gays for making "choices" that, in most cases, they don't even make.

KA

KA, your experience with homophobia being correlated with bad life choices has been mine as well.

I don't think I disagree with you about anything in this thread, KA. You're ultimately right to say that it wouldn't matter if gays were worse parents on average. But funnily enough, gay parents aren't worse parents on average, so bigoted arguments against gay adoption are both invalid AND have false premises. You've just pointed out the first flaw in their argument, while I've been harping on the second. There's an embarrassment of riches on our side of the argument.

truth dancer wrote: ...

There is no evidence whatsoever that children raised with two moms or two dads suffer from abuse because of the sexual orientation of their parents. It is utter nonsense. There is not a single, knowledgeable, reputable expert in the world who would suggest such a thing. It is craziness!

Going back to my last post... if two straight uncles take in a niece and nephew whose parents were killed are they abusing the children by virtue of their being two men? Of course not. No one in their right mind would suggest such a thing. If two unmarried sisters take in a couple of foster children is the mere fact that there are two women in the home somehow abusive? Of course not. So why is it that some people think it is abusive if the two men or women are attracted to each other?
...

Hi Truth dancer,

That reminds me of this TV Show back in the 1980's.

My Two Dads TV Theme Song:

Jersey Girl wrote:You should have referenced a whole boatload of evidence, a research study for example, before whipping out the snarky attitude.

First, might I say that your "cksnarksalot" is abysmally lame, Jersey? Certainly, it is; but it's also quite in keeping with a certain MAD ethos. I won't repay in kind.

Yah. On an only minimally-related note, I have no intention of failing to defend the very few instances in which you make the salient point, Jersey Girl.

"Snarky attitude?" That's more than rich. It stinks of fertilizer.

Carry on, my friend.

cks

I know this thread kicked the bucket a while ago, but I've been reading while waiting for Courtney to come home from her Owl City concert and thought I'd share what I've learned.

Jane Addams isn't an unfamiliar figure to me, but I've not read much about her since high school. After touring Hull House recently, I decided to revisit Jane and I'm so glad I did.

Jane Addams was a wonderful woman who did so much good for children and immigrant populations in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods. She used her own inheritance as seed money for her philanthropic endeavors, but soon had many donors and volunteers at her disposal. Jane took in abused women, delivered "illegitimate" babies because many Christian mid-wives and doctors refused to do so, and cared for unwanted, deformed babies who were dropped off at her door, including one with a cleft palate. She funded the first public playground in Chicago and headed a national effort to build public playgrounds in poor areas around the United States.

A kindergarten for immigrant children was begun in her Hull House facility, and night classes for immigrant adults taught them useful skills so they could rise out of poverty. She was the force behind the first branch of the Juvenile Justice System, because she knew that children needed and deserved different care than adult offenders. Jane sought the rehabilitation of children, not their incarceration.

Jane succeeded in getting tenement housing regulation, supported eight-hour workdays for women and promoted women's suffrage. She was the first female recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. She was also a lesbian who was in a long-term relationship with Mary Rozet Smith.

There exist states today which would deny Jane the ability to adopt a child were she alive and desirous to do so. I'm betting those states would welcome her non-publicly funded care for the poor and her work to get necessary operations for children born with birth defects and her privately-funded playgrounds, but they wouldn't allow her to adopt a child. That seems so wrong.

I understand that Jane is an extreme example. There are very few folks who will do as much for others as Jane Addams; I know I never will. Still, were there a Jane Addams in Arkansas or Florida who wanted to adopt, her application would be denied. How unfortunate.

Court's finally on her way home. Thank goodness. I can sleep soon. :)

KA

Hi KA,

Thanks for your insights! LOVE Jane Addams!

You bring up two points that are particularly pertinent to the discussion.

First, as your example of Jane Addams beautifully demonstrates, parenting children has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the sexual orientation of a kind and loving adult. Why some people think that it does is still a mystery to me (and obviously to them since I have yet to hear any reasonable argument to make their case).

In addition, your post speaks to the issue I brought up in the OP, that is while the LDS church is encouraging members to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to stop loving gay and lesbian couples from marrying, there is virtually no serious effort to actually help the children of the world.

It seems to me the Godly or holy effort would be to plead with loving couples everywhere to help those children who need homes, rather than worry about loving partners who want to strengthen their familial bonds.

It seems the really dramatic (enlightened) changes in society and individual consciousness, whether it is the elimination of slavery, equality, civil rights, programs for the disabled, etc., have been started by those without the gospel, some who may be considered evil or followers of Satan by certain individuals.

Is it unreasonable to think that the one and only true church upon the earth would be at the fore of starting programs to help children, to support struggling families, to care for the elderly or disabled?

While the mission of the LDS church is to preach the gospel, help the dead people, and perfect the saints, where is there any effort to actually help those in need right here on earth?



~td~

I acknowledge the LDS church does give some support to various countries throughout the world during crisis.

truth dancer wrote:Is it unreasonable to think that the one and only true church upon the earth would be at the fore of starting programs to help children, to support struggling families, to care for the elderly or disabled?

Hi, TD.

One of the bad things about the centralized power structure of the LDS church is that it takes folks out of the trenches, in a way, when it comes to caring for the poor and needy. Individual members can't sway the leadership to give more to feeding the hungry and less to construction endeavors. They can't choose or vote to divert funds from one area to another. Thankfully, not all churches operate in that manner.

I attend a Methodist church which is full-up with lovely, giving people. The people are the church. The people control, through various organized ways, the church budget. My congregation has opted many times in the past to forgo building projects and instead divert funds to causes such as feeding the hungry and tending the poor and lame. We try to be responsive to the needs of our community. I feel sure if our pastor were to call congregants and ask them to donate money to fight gay marriage that he'd be assigned to a new congregation posthaste, but it's quite likely he'd be stripped of his ordination entirely. That kind of political bullying just isn't done--at least not in good churches.

My daughters and I have had the chance to work with other churches in town at a community food bank. This past summer, after noticing how long the lines were and how hot it was and how many children were there waiting and restless, my friend and my daughters and I decided that our time at the food bank would best be spent entertaining children. We bought lots of popsicles, stuck them in coolers with dry ice, packed sidewalk chalk, jacks, coloring books and crayons and stayed outside the food bank with the kids under a few shade trees and played all afternoon. It was the best time and money I've ever spent. We did it several times and my girls decided to buy (with their own money) bubbles, modeling clay and other things to take with us on subsequent trips. I'm so proud of them. They are generous and good.

My girls and I, with the help of our church, have baked cookies for prisoners (which is done on a weekly basis and has been for years), fed the homeless (again, a weekly ongoing ministry), cleaned apartments at Exodus House and readied them for men and women who were being released from prison (the apartment building is owned by several Methodist churches in town), raised money for infant formula for needy mothers and their babies, gathered coats for homeless men, and on and on. Next summer, Courtney will be going with a group of men and women from church who are building homes in Mexico with the help of Habitat for Humanity. Again, a trip organized by individuals at our church.

I say all the above to show that not all churches are like the Mormon church. It is clear in my mind that churches can be a great force for good when the folks in them have the right mindset.

When one gets out in the trenches with the needy, the imprisoned, the poor and the sick, projects like fighting gay marriage have a way of losing their relevance. For my $50.00, I'd rather buy popsicles for kids waiting in line at the food bank than donate it to fighting gay marriage, but I believe that folks should do as they feel right with their own money, even if it is supporting political causes I find wrong. I think, however, that I get much more satisfaction out of my $50.00 than they do theirs. :-)

We sing this song at church sometimes, and it's one of my favorites: Here I Am Lord. I try to sign the songs, but this one, I can't. I usually have to dab my eyes with a tissue too often.

I, the Lord of wind and flame,
I will tend the poor and lame.
I will set a feast for them.
My hand will save.

Chorus
Here I am, Lord. Is it I, Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night.
I will go, Lord, if you lead me.
I will hold your people in my heart.

Finest bread I will provide,
'Til their hearts be satisfied.
I will give my life to them.
Whom shall I send?

Chorus
Here I am, Lord. Is it I, Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night.
I will go, Lord, if you lead me.
I will hold your people in my heart.


Most folks think of evangelism when they sing Here I Am Lord, but I think the verses apply to charitable actions, as well. There are so many folks who need help and so few people able or willing to give it. "Is it I?" "Yes."

Like you, TD, I wish folks would stop fretting that two gay people who love each other might get married and instead focus on more noble and useful pursuits like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and visiting the lonely and the sick. Those things make everyone happier, the recipients and the givers.

I'm getting off this soap box now. I ought to be doing something for folks instead of typing about doing something.

KA