Can I get a guitar, please – with no strings attached??
Friends,
The phrase “No strings attached” is a widely-used and well-accepted catch-phrase that is commonly used in advertisement slogans or by salesmen as they try to convince their customers to buy their deals or products. As cautious consumers we do tend to circumspectly look for any hidden string that might be attached to any deal and stay away from any such string.
Whereas it is wise to stay away from “strings” in the marketing sphere, there are several things in life in which the strings come attached and are not meant to be separated. A guitar is a silly example, but there are several real-life situations that qualify for this. Just as the woodwork and the strings make a guitar, Rights and Responsibilities are two inseparable components of real-life situations. It is a tragedy that we humans often tend to look at some important real-life situations with a consumer’s mentality and try to do away with the string of Responsibilities but hold on to and even intensely fight for the woodwork of Rights. We find it very simple to recognize that a guitar with no strings is no good but we often don’t seem to recognize the dire consequences of neglecting the responsibilities of our actions.
Some pregnant women want to claim complete rights over their own bodies but conveniently choose to neglect the responsibility for the life they carry within. Some adults claim their right to do whatever they want together, but when the morning comes, they choose to kill their responsibility with the “morning after” pill. Some homosexual partners claim their right for parenthood but neglect the responsibility of providing the child with real parents – a mom and a dad. Some young people claim their right to wear whatever they want, conveniently neglecting to think about their responsibility to not be a moral stumbling block or a source of temptation to a passer-by. And there are many such examples. Has not this “Rights-only” mentality led to the rampant decadence of our society wherein the degree of moral corruption has reached a point that it requires the Senate to look for answers to fundamental questions of life such as the definition of marriage – and the Senate too offers no hope??
The above are just a few examples of the “Rights-only” approach on a bigger scale. Whereas it seems convenient to cite these weighty examples to beat the point, the simple fact is that every human being, including myself, tends to fall into this “Rights-only” approach in little as well as big things in our everyday life. The issue at hand could be the matter of how we spend our leisure time, or how we feed our stomach, or what words we let out of our mouth, or how we entertain ourselves, or how we respond to someone standing on the street and holding a “Help” sign, or something else. It is essential to bear in mind that the God who lets us exercise our rights also charges us with a responsibility for our actions.
Adam and Eve exercised their right to eat of the forbidden tree. And Oh! Boy, were they (or the whole humanity for that matter) ever able to bear the responsibility for that?? Christ bore the responsibility for that. May we be wise enough to think of our responsibilities before we rush to exercise our rights!
posted by Wes @ 6/03/2006 09:51:00 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:
Oh My Goddess, there are some many thing about your post that have me ticked off, it's hard to know WHERE to begin....
Firstof all it IS my body, therefore it is MY choice as to what I do with it. Unfortunatly EVEN the most responsible people in the world, sometimes get themselves into situations. If I were a few years younger and single, I might choose an abortion if I found myself in a situation like being pregnant. A 16 year old girl has NO business having a kid she can not support. MOST 16 year olds can't take careof themselves, much less take on the responsibility that comes with being a parent. I am 32 and I find it hard at times. Also a drug addict doesn't need to be giving birth to a child who will be addicted to drugs, born with serious birth defects and face a life that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. And don't say adoption, I ask you how many people are willing to put their lives on hold and give a drig addicted infant with SEVERE disabilities the time and attention it needs tojust survive, much less thrive.
As for teenagers dressing appropriatly, I agree to a certain extent, PARENTS should take a responsibility to make sure their children feel valued for ALL their attributes so thattheir children dont feel the need to make due with attributes they only THINK they have. BUT I disagree with you because thats like saying the girl who gets brutally raped and was wearing a short skirt deserved it. She didn't. She could have been BUCK ass naked and she STILL would NOT have deserved tobe raped. No woman does. Parents negelect to teach their children one MAIN thing, thatis UNCONDITIONAL love. Perhaps if parents got involved with their children a bit more and LISTENED to their children WITHOUT judgement, we wouldn't have half the problems we do with teenagers in society.
AND now for my biggest PROBLEM with your post. You say it is irresponsible of same sex couples to consider adopting or having a child because a child needs both a mother and a father. Science has PROVEN that a child needs stability, nurturing, food, clothes and MOST of all LOVE and they have also PROVEN that a child can get these things from having a parent in the home to provide them. They have denounced vehemently the theory that a child needs a male and a female in order to provide these things. They have EVEN denounced recently a child needs TWO parents. A single parent can do just as much for a child as two parents can. But I know you don't go by science.
Not to embarress my husband, but in THIS family, in MANY ways I am taking on the "male" role as you call it. My husband isn't mechanical but guess what I AM! I can put together tables and chairs, change a tire, change the oil and construct ANYTHING you need just about. So don't give me this crap about sex roles, sex roles are something society has put on us, not something thatis inate or that some mysterious being named God gave us.
You talk about RIGHTS, well doesn't the child have rights as well? The right to be born to someone who WANTS them? The right to be born in a decent state of mental and physical health? Don't give me this christian facist Idea of Rights and Responsibilities. Its a load of crap and all it does is produce more hate.
Last I checked, your Jesus didn't hate anyone. Last I checked according to YOU and believers like you, GOD created ALL man in HIS image. So therefore, according to YOUR own logic, God created homosexuals.
Stop spreading hate. You may think you aren't but you. And thatis whatis wrong with this world. People like you thinking you are MORE riteous than others and you know whats best. You DONT, you teach hate at its root form. STOP THE HATE.
Um, ok. Yes, I think the average Christian does believe that each individual was created in the image of God. That is why many of us find abortion so horrific. He did not confer his image at birth, but knew and loved us even in the womb. And I don't think that anyone here is arguing that God does not love homosexuals. It is the sin he is not particularly fond of. He created murderers, adulterers and child molesters, too, but that does not mean their behavior is acceptable in His sight.
I'd like to see what research you have come up with that discounts that children need two parents. Even Hillary Clintonacknowledges the harm of single parent households to children.
And who wants to adopt these drug addicted babies? Just because you don't want to does not mean such people do not exist. I've witnessed the joyful adoptions of several such children. And can we really judge a life worth living? Did God not create the handicapped in His image, too? Shall we also legalize euthanasia for the elderly...or the depressed as Holland has done...because we wouldn't want to live that way?
The central problem is that people no longer view our freedoms in the sense they were first envisioned. Instead of rights, which by their very nature imply responsibility, we now have a system of entitlements which equates with privileges without responsibility.
Ok on several points I can share a comment....
Thankfully I live in one such state that allows legal assisted suicide for those who have terminal illnesses and if I had a terminal illness, I would definatly consider that route. It is MY right to die with dignity and not die a slow agonizing death that leaves me incapable of caring for myself creating an OVERWHELMING burden on my family.
As for adoption, I am ONE such baby so THANK YOU very much for alluding that I wouldn't adopt such a child. I MOST certainly would, but the fact of the matteris, MANY people want the perfect little bundle of joy. If it right or wrong? I don't know, but I know an AWFUL lot about adoption and I can tell you that statistically speaking, these children don't get adopted very quickly or very often. Does it happen? Yes and I am thankful to the people who decide to give these kids a great life.
And who and the HECK said Hillary Clinton had all the answers, she can't even keep her own husband happy, why should I take advice about raising a kid from her??!! And I suggest YOU do your own research about what psychologists have said about single parent and same sex families. I DO my research now do yours.
And the mere fact thatyou could equate homosexuality in the same sentence as murderers and child molesters shows what a SICK and twisted individual you are. Do you KNOW a gay family? Have you been in their homes?? Do you know ANY members of the GLBT community? If you do, I DARE you to tell them exactly whatyou have told me. I can gaurantee you they will be HIGHLY offended.
I don't give a fig newton about what some MADE up God said or didn't say. What I do care about is the Christians (NOT ALL of them), who say Jesus said love they neighbor then turn around and treat human beings like absolute dog crap because it offends their sensibilities.
I agree that with rights comes responsibilities. If you break a law, you are punished in accordance with that law. But by that I am not talking the laws of God or Allah. If YOU choose to follow those laws, it is YOUR business not mine, BUT you need to be aware that THOSE laws should NOT have any baring on the laws of MAN. Seperation of Church and State is there for a reason. Don't shove your God down my throat and I wont shove my LACK of one down yours.
Teach your kids right from wrong and consequences. But dont expect my right and wrong to be the same as yours.
Oh since you PROBABLY won't do the research, hereis a WONDERFUL link to the APA website on Gay and Lesbian parental studies :D see I DO my research and did I also mention, I am two semesters away from my second bachelors in Psych.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
You can also find a TON of research on this site relating to Single Parent households. Providing a STABLE and loving environment and having an OPEN communication are KEY to ANY childs progress to adulthood. PERIOD. In other words, it doesn't matter WHO raises you or how many there are, it matters HOW they raise you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ladycelticfire. Keep it burning.
I'm stood behind you with my guitar, ready to sing out on rights and responsibility.
That's unity and charity for one's neighbour, Wes.
Not passing judgement before you have walked a mile in someone else's shoes.
Just being there to respond to someone's 'help' sign, despite their circumstances and their background.
True charity is looking past your own morals to reach out to someone less fortunate, whether they are of your credo or not.
Love thy neighbour?
Ha!
So long as they ain't gay or an abortionist.
You lay down with hypocrisy at risk of giving birth to Piety.
I suggest you terminate that horrific offspring before the blinkered little tyke swallows you whole.
First of all, I think LadyCeltic has, in an all-around way debunked dana's argument.
Dana, who based much, if not all, of her argument on contradictory (and hypocritical) biblical principles, can not stand to think of a better mold for society then the narrow, patriarchal, oppressive Judeo-Christian family.
Meanwhile, LadyCelt is arguing that life is considerably more complex, more diverse then all that jazz.
And she has the AUDACITY to back assertion with facts! The heathen!
Christians talk about the miracle of life, while largely ignoring the tremendous suffering that exists, and instead of actively fighting for real, tangible change, most will throw dust in the eyes of the masses of people and tell them to pray to their god, and all will be cool in the "next life."
Shall we also legalize euthanasia for the elderly...or the depressed as Holland has done...because we wouldn't want to live that way?
Yes, we should. If you have respect for life, and the dignity of life, then you can respect someone's choice of when and how to die.
On Hillary Clinton....
I don't care about her views on the family either. She is a member of the very class that reinforces the majority of all the oppression that currently exists.
But, my disagreement isn't because "she can't keep her husband happy..." that'a borderline sexist comment...men don't get the right to do whatever they want because their wives are obedient enough.
I don't examplify Hilary's line simply because her class is the same class that enforces these oppressive things.
And in closing, LadyCelt has every right to be outraged with using homosexuality and pedophillia and murders in the same sentance.
When the queer revolution comes, the homophobes better hide!
I say give Ru Paul some stillettos and a gun and let her loose!!!!
I say give Ru Paul some stillettos and a gun and lether loose!!!
I never said Miss Clinton had all the answers. And I wasn't referring to gay marriage. And there was not meant to be any implication that a homosexual is on the same plane as a murderer. I was only pointing out that God created all of us in His image. Our behavior is a separate issue, and I drew on extremes to make that point clear. Obviously it fell short.
I am happy to hear of your successful adoption. Praise the Lord. I know of many such adoptions. They were the children I worked with. And we have a whole agence here devoted to placing such children. Again, a lot of these children would not be in this plight if people took responsibility for their own actions, ie., stayed off the drugs, did not have sex unless they were ready to take care of a child, etc. I do feel for those in abusive situations who were raped, molested, or whose lives are threatened by delivery. But they are not the norm for abortions. Most occur not because of the drug addicted baby, rape, or danger to the life of the mother. They occur because the mother does not feel she can or wishes to care for a baby. Yes, adoption is one option. Better use of birth control another. Abstinence another.
I was not speaking on same sex adoptions, but on children raised in single parent households. I am not saying they are all evil, that every child is going to come out of them twisted and abused and that there are never reasons for divorce or whatever. Before you go off on a tangent of same-sex marriage that I was not referring to, look at what I actually said.
What I am saying is that behaviors have consequences. Rights come with responsibilities. That is the whole point of Wes' post.
I can almost see your thing with physician assisted suicide...I was referring to the precedent in Holland where a 12 year old suffering with depression can obtain assistance for a suicide and the parent can do nothing to prevent it.
I am sorry you feel so personally offended by my beliefs. I have not personally told you that you have to do anything. I only shared my thoughts and opinions. I shall not call you names (sick and twisted? That's going a bit far against a person you've never met just because I don't think abortion is a good thing and I would prefer homosexuals not get married, isn't it? I wouldn't even legislate the latter...it isn't the government's affair. I was ONLY pointing out that God created the individual, not the behavior.)
I'm sorry you feel that Christianity produces more hate. There are some who carry the Christian message who display nothing but hate, and it grieves me to be associated with them in any way. I once had to walk through a demonstration to get to class in which Christians were holding up signs that read, "God hates f***." That is not my stance. He created them and loves them, just as he created and loves me, too.
I don't know that what the world has had to offer has given us a decent alternative, has it? I'm sick and twisted because I disagree on a matter that will never affect you personally? That really is a statement full of love. I wouldn't even choose to legislate most of what we disagree on. I would just counsel someone in such a situation to consider other options.
I never shoved my God down your throat. You came to Wes' blog voluntarily. You commented on a Christian blog about Christiann principles you disagree with. I answered with my beliefs. You, of your own free will, returned and commented further. I did not go to your blog and comment. I only presented my beliefs. I very much approached my comment from my perspective and what I believe in. I don't see where I said you had to believe it or live by it. Goodness, you don't even believe in God, so sharing what I believe is good, moral living in the sight of God is hardly where I would begin a conversation with you if it were my choice. And if you are not shoving your disbelief down my throat, why the insults? I haven't insulted you. Just disagreed with you.
We weren't tallking about what should or shouldn't be legislated, nor was Wes. That is a completely separate issue. There is not sense in the hostility on that point because I have not asked you to do or think anything you don't already. I only pointed out my personal beliefs and why I hold them.
And yes, the separation of church and state is there for a reason...to protect the church from the state. Our founding fathers were fearful of a state mandated religion because of what had happened in England. It was not because they believed there should be no discussion of God in the public sphere or that it should have no bearing on government.
Don't take that as me saying that we should return to some OT law or something. That isn't at all what I believe. Before you insult me with another round of personal attacks, please ensure you know what I actually believe. Don't assume it because you know another Christian and they believe something. Or because I say that this is right and that is wrong that I am going to somehow take steps to prevent you from doing it. Christianity is about voluntary submission to the will of God, not about legislating an external conformity. It is about my relationship, not what you do with your life.
Have a great day! Please don't take my disagreement with you so personally. It isn't meant as a personal attack. Just trying to clarify some of my beliefs.
Dana,
You say that 'God created all of us in His image. Our behavior is a separate issue'
Why is it a seperate issue?
If you have children (who are made in your own image) do you not try and imbue them with a sense of morality to guide them?
Or do you just let them run amok and shrug your shoulders when they run into trouble?
'Sorry Officer. I only created little Johnny. I can't actually be held responsible for his actions...'
Not sure I'm understanding your point. when your child goes against your teaching...either in misbehavior or simply choosing differently from what you have instructed...is it because you caused him to do so or because you have given him the free will, ie., absence of 100% control at all times, to make some of his own choices?
God gave us the ability to choose.
Of course I try to teach my chilren morality. Just as God taught of his perfect way. But my children do not always listen, nor does humanity as a whole.
I am responsible, legally and morally, for what my my minor children do. But there will come a time when they must make their own decisions. I hope and pray they remain faithful to their parents' teachings, but there is no guarantee. They are in my image, but not under my control.
My point is that I am wondering what you would do if one of your children decided they were gay, or they wanted an abortion.
It goes without saying that you would always be there to support them.
But if, for example, you disagree with same sex marriages on the basis that it goes against the bible, would you miss your offsprings wedding?
Society is in a state of constant flux. Religion tends to remain rigid. How often does religious inflexibility come between families when dogma could be abandoned in favour of mutual understanding?
'If that baby you save turns out to be gay, will you still campaign for it's rights?'
Somebody wise
Dear All ,
greetings to everybody commenting on this Wes'Corner.Although it is very late to comment on this topic, Iam kindled to offer the following points of my views , after going through all the 14 comments of LadyCelticFire ,Dana and UltraToastMoshaGod .
# The basic problem lies with the concept/knowledge/experience of God.
# One would normally see things in the SAME colour as that of the glass one wears. So for those who do not believe in the living God , Who alone is the source of all morals,EVERYTHING is explainable, excusable and experimentable with no holds.
# God has created man in His image,
as everybody has logically agreed,
BUT the reality of finding murderers,adulteres,homosexuals,rappists gangsters and the like is purely the making of man. This is because of wrong exercise of the FREEWILL that God gave to man.God did not want man to be just a ROBOT,simply obeing His commands. He wanted man to use his freewill to reciprocate His love.But what happened and how man is seperated from the Creator are all well-known
facts.
# To say , it is my body and I do whatever I like is simply another unbriddled exercise of that FREEWILL.Well, what follows would be a chain-reaction of crisis.
# All this concept of Single-sex parents adopting a child is un-natural ,abnormal and therefore not easy to practise. People have to realize that couples of same sex are against human-growth and human-existence.
#To say that Christianity is preaching hate is a colossal mis-statement.The fact that Jesus Christ died on the Cross to redeem sinfull men , is the foundation of Christianity.It is based on LOVE and that too on the LOVE of CHRIST.It is because of that love that thousands have gone all over the World as missionaries to bring the GOOD NEWS to many . It may be that there are some nominal Christians who may appear to be over-jealous in their mental-christianity ,who may appear to be lacking in love and understanding of the specific issues . So let it not be generelized ,which would be A TOTAL UN-TRUTH.
Uhh, 'Moses.'
I don't know where to start..
'People have to realize that couples of same sex are against human-growth and human-existence.'
If they are against human growth and existence, why are they trying to adopt and care for children who may grow up to have kids of their own, thus contiuing to propogate mankind?
Or do you presume that these same sex parents will 'turn' their kids gay?
I mean, it's not as if they're BORN that way. It is a 'choice' after all, isn't it?
Iam pleased and thankfull for the prompt response of UltraToastMoshaGod. My observation that parenthood of same-sex is against human growth and human-existance is to stress the obvious basic fact; that is there can not be conception and birth , which is essential for the growth and existence of humanity.
# The practise of adoptation of a child by the same-sex parents initself is appreciable.But the environment in which the adopted child would grow will be highly un-balenced and mostly it will be a "made-up" one. Hense your logical presumption of the child turning-out to be a gay-person would be correct.
# Your observation ,"It is a choice,after all,is n't it?" is factual and obvious.But it is not the right choice. We can act in drama, not in real life.The Bible tells that, "The heart is decetfull... and desperately wicked"(Jer 17:9). So unless we have a will to correct our natural leanings,the choice will be only ab-normal.
# It is a plain fact that Society can not be healthy and growing if same-sex parenhood becomes an acceptable practise.People may feel the thrill of it, but society will decline with a shrill.
Thanks for the attention.
Moses.
Read it again.
But with your sarcasm radar switched on.
It amuses me that you actually believe that a child can be 'turned' gay.
Surely, If it were just a simple matter of choice, homosexuals would just decide to be straight - to avoid all the uninformed prejudice about homosexuality that exists amongst the straight community?
Wouldn't they?
Mis-balanced parenting? Do you think it's any more mis-balanced than not having any parenting at all?
Who are you to say what the balance is anyway?
Ultra toast mosha god,
Obviously, Mr. Moses did not catch the sarcastic punch you packed in your words about kids being turned gay. But I have to fully agree with his comments. Isn’t being gay defined and reflected by the homosexual acts/desires/motives a person subscribes himself to?? It is a choice that a person makes. Some are more vulnerable to it than others. It is a matter of succumbing to temptation. One of the characteristic features of the nature of sin is that it causes temptation look so powerful so as to make the person exposed to it think that there is no way out for him and that he was meant to take the bait. This is true for all kinds of sin that bring about an addictive and enslaving effect on those who fall into it. In a sense, a person who has subscribed himself to a lifestyle of homosexuality is no different in his thinking than a habitual liar or a thief who deceives himself to think that he is born to deceive or rob people and that there is no other way for him and hence feels justified.
You are saying that a gay person, if he could, would choose to change his behavior in order to make himself socially acceptable to those who do not agree with his lifestyle. A couple of things: First, you are implying that a homosexual person would want to be in agreeable terms with those who think different than he does. Doesn’t the very fact that a person has chosen a lifestyle that is abnormal convey that he has prepared himself to go against what is normal and would not care about what normal people think and say?? Second, when a person continues in an abnormal lifestyle, it’s not because of an impossibility to change his lifestyle, but rather it’s because of his desire to continue in his lifestyle and the tightening grip he has allowed this sin to have on him.
I never intended my blog to be all about discussing homosexuality. There are several sins that become habitual and have a great influence on our lifestyle. I know that it’s not as simple as “Hey, forsake this habit” – and there it’s gone. There’s more to it. Often there are issues of painful and abusive experiences in the past. Some people who have been caught in some sins have found it humanly impossible to change their thinking and their lifestyle. That’s why we need a Savior. When we find that we are incapable of changing ourselves, our natural response often is to think, “Oh! See, I tried to change but didn’t succeed. So, the logical conclusion is: this is who I am and this is how I am meant to be”. We need to go beyond our natural human response and look toward our Savior Jesus Christ who alone can bring about the needed change.
- Wes
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wes,
The only reason i suggested that a person might choose to be straight over gay - if I believed it were a matter choice - is because of the prejudice that exists towards homosexuality.
I would have suggested the opposite if we lived in a predominantly homosexual society.
This passage interested me:
"A couple of things: First, you are implying that a homosexual person would want to be in agreeable terms with those who think different than he does. Doesn’t the very fact that a person has chosen a lifestyle that is abnormal convey that he has prepared himself to go against what is normal and would not care about what normal people think and say??"
Just because a person chooses a lifestyle that does not go with the grain, that does not mean they do not wish to be on good terms with society.
You should consider the very real possibility that society does not wish to be on good terms with them.
You seem to assume that your definition of 'normal' is the correct one.
You speak of the sin of homosexuality as a temptation:
"One of the characteristic features of the nature of sin is that it causes temptation look so powerful so as to make the person exposed to it think that there is no way out for him and that he was meant to take the bait"
Have you ever been tempted by homosexuality?
If so then I would agree that your observation concurs with your dogma.
If you have not, then I put it to you that this statement is in fact a falsehood.
I await your answer
ultra toast mosha god,
When I wrote about the power of temptation, I wasn’t having just homosexuality in my mind. The principle holds good for a variety of sins and I myself have been under the influence of several such stuff – thinking that I was meant to do something, which I later regret and repent for after confronted by God’s truth.
Now, to respond to your specific question, I’ve never been tempted to lead a lifestyle of same-gender relationship. But growing up as a kid, in my pre-teen and early-teen years, I knew a couple of guys who either occasionally or habitually committed “homosexual acts” and there was a period of time when I felt tempted to show/share my excitement over the physical changes in my body. My thinking at that time was that it was perfectly normal to engage in some of these “closet acts” – that was until I discovered what the word of God had to say on this. When I was confronted with the word of God, I was convicted, I came to the true realization of what it is, repented, and asked God for His forgiveness. Since then there has been no return to it. The fundamental aspect was the realization of how God has designed our bodies and how they are meant to be used. I’ve known and have been friends with those who have been habitually under the influence of this sin. At the core, it’s a matter of misguided sexuality.
Thanks for your comments.
- Wes
Thanks to Ultra Toast Mosha God for the comments of 02August'06.I desire to submit the following observations:
# There was no atom of sarcasm in my comments of 31July '06.Instead,it was written with a deep sense of symparhy,but with definite dislike to the practise of homosexuality.
# A child getting turned to be a 'gay' person is a strong possibility if the environment is ripe for it. A family with a father and mother ONLY can provide a balenced environment.I mean a normal family with wholesome father-mother relation. Without such a family none of us can claim existence in this world.So it is evident that a 'gay' environment is likely to turn a child to be a 'gay' person.
# Of course some parenting is better than no-parenting at all. But the decline of family-life due to self-centered attitudes of life-partners,make other kind of same-sex association attractive.And that is not the solution.It is moving from one disease to another.
# Of course I do not claim any authority to advocate balenced family-environment. BUT I, as a rational-human, have every right to call a spade a spade and no-different. THANKS.
Wes,
It is only a matter of 'misguided sexuality' because it does not fall within your belief structure - but I see your logic in this respect.
I tend to decide upon which temptations I pursue dependent upon my own reasoning of right and wrong, rather than reasoning that is based on a text that I do not believe is considerate of an ever-changing society.
Moses,
In reference to your comment about mothers and fathers - "Without such a family none of us can claim existence in this world.So it is evident that a 'gay' environment is likely to turn a child to be a 'gay' person."
You use the term 'evident' in the above statement. To prove your theory, I would like to see some evidence - statiscal or otherwise - that gay parenting 'turns' children gay. Currently, I would strongly disagree with this statement.
"Of course some parenting is better than no-parenting at all. But the decline of family-life due to self-centered attitudes of life-partners,make other kind of same-sex association attractive.And that is not the solution.It is moving from one disease to another."
What are you trying to say here?
That parents who are selfish are likely to consider same-sex relationships?!?
Solution to what?
What 'diseases' are you talking about?
Thanks to Ultra Toast Mosha God for the comments of 18th Aug,'06.
My clarifications are the following :
# My reference to the need of a father and mother is from the simple biological fact of conception and birth,without which none of us can exist in the world.
# The "evidense" that I was talking about is not based on any research or statistics,but purely from logical deduction that the mind-set of a child will be based on the environment inwhich it grows. So a gay-environment is sure to produce a gay-child.
# The self-centered attitude is a "getting" attitude and not a "giving"attitude. So in family-relation when there is attitude-mismatch,people get divorced and move to other kind of relations.This break-up of family is a disease of the society. So the up-keep of children and their future become difficult.
# The same-sex parenthood is TOTALLY un-natural and will not provide the normal environment for the adopted child to grow.So this is also another disease of the society.I do not mean that selfish partners of family will seperate and move to same-sex association.That is a possibility,but that is not the main reason for same-sex association.
# The break-up of family-life is a major cause for ALL the evils that can be found in a otherwise sound and healthy society.
Hope iam understood. Thanks.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Moses,
I agree that the dissolution of family is an important reason for a lot of societies ills. I too believe that a solid family base is an important factor in raising a child.
But the traditional idea of a family base has changed unalterably and I think to deny charity to the this ideal is to be ignorant of the truth of modern society.
I have hope that there are gay parents out there who will stay together for the rest of their lives and raise happy children who go out in the world and make their own decisions about who they are.
How can that be a bad hope to have?
I refer to your statement:
"# The "evidense" that I was talking about is not based on any research or statistics,but purely from logical deduction that the mind-set of a child will be based on the environment inwhich it grows. So a gay-environment is sure to produce a gay-child"
The 'evidence' you refer cannot be classified as Evidence because Evidence is physical proof of an occurance. You admitted to having foregone the paragon of solid argument - research.
Therefore, without statistical backup, your 'logical deduction' that a 'gay-environment is sure to produce a a gay-child' is flawed. To claim this as 'logic' you need to be able to PROVE not only the statement: "Every child parented by gay parents will be gay", but also the statement "every child not parented by gay parents will not be gay"
You have singularly failed to do this.
Thanking Ultra Toast Mosha God for the comments of Aug 22,2006, I would like to offer the following clarifications and comments :
# It is true that one has to do
some data collection and do
statistical analysis to prove the
point that gay-parenthood would
produce gay-child. And it is
only a matter of details. But
there can be no denying of the
logical deduction that the
probability is very high.
# It is also un-deniable that a
normal father-mother parent-hood
can also produce a gay-cyhild.
It depends on the contacts and
mind-set of the child.
# The health and happiness of a
society depend ENTIRELY on the
ethical and moral standards that
are valued and practised.
# You agreed that the standards of
of family-life has declined and
that, that has a direct bearing
on rearing of children.
# You observed that the trditional
idea of a family has changed un-
alterably.Why and how was it
changed?! When people started to
dis-count time-tested values and
became self-possessed and
indulgeant,they started justi-
fying their behaviour.It is a
clear departure from proven-ways.
# May I have the liberty to urge
to read in The Bible at Romains
1:18 to 32verses , wherin the
eventuality of such a departure
is vividly spelt-out.
# Time tested ethical and moral-
values are like the Road-Traffic
rules. They have to be respected
and un-questionably followed .
Then only we can have orderly
and accident-free traffic.
Ethical and moral standards are indeed the lynchpin of a peacefull society.
Unfortunately, it seems that traditional gender stereotypes get in the way of this ideal.
Bear in mind that when I suggested the standards of family life are declining, I did not make this statement based upon any kind of gender bias.
I make the statement based on the idea that parents are sitting their kids in front of DVD players or Computer games instead of interacting with them fully like they did in days of old. The distraction of modern technology, it could be argued, is primarily at fault, not gay parents.
Children need to be educated about the world in it's fullness, and so long as that education comes from a solid parental background, I think the sexuality of the teachers matters not.
A child will likely become alienated and confused if it is told that homosexuality is wrong, only to see it accepted as lifestyle choice out in the real world.
I will read the passage you suggest, although it appears to be related to the Romans who were well known to practice what i have no doubt you would call 'depraved and sordid acts' upon each other as a cultural norm.
In practising ethical and moral codes, where is the question of gender stereotypes getting in the way? Your observation on the lack of communication between the parents and children, on account of occupation with DVDs and the INTERNET, as a major contributer for the decline of family-life is
very true.Such an environment makes the child get allienated and detached. Under such a situation,the child would look for alternate attachnent. And a gay-parenthood would provide the momentum to a gay-life.
Your comment that teaching a child about the badthing of homosexuality
would make the child alienated and confused is very in-correct.The child will only get the awareness of what is good and bad. Do you mean to say that homosexuality is good and desirable for a society.If that is so,then theft,adultery,lyeing,even murder and the like evils also can be added to the list.
And if permissive-logic is the language to be used,one can justify the whole list of evils.
My sincere request would be to kindly read that portion
(Romains 1:18to32) of The Bible and offer your observations and comments. Thanks.
Traditional gender stereotypes get in the way of practising ethical and moral codes because society in general is becoming more open to the idea of men and women changing their roles within it.
If gay parents abide by all laws when caring for their children, why should they not be accepted as equals with in society?
The only conlict is being caused is by people like you who seem to think it is wrong. If the law says it is right, who are you to disagree?
Theft,adultery, and murder differ from homosexuality because they are a breach of constitutional law, here in the u.k at least.
Perhaps you should consider reading some passages relating to this, seeing as I will be reading the Romans passage you quoted.
What i think is 'good and desirable' for society is tolerance of harmless lifestyles to give a better and more rounded civilisation . I refer you to the points of law above.
'Your comment that teaching a child about the badthing of homosexuality
would make the child alienated and confused is very in-correct.The child will only get the awareness of what is good and bad.'
You are missing my point, I think. Yoo assume that the chld will question nothing that you tell it.
Gay = bad. Not Gay = Good
Children question everything, and they will keep questioning everything when they grow up. Yo question is human nature and this is how we make progress and evolve.
The point I am trying to make is that, once you have stressed this fantastically simplistic theory, the child may well go out and see that many other factions of society acceot homosexuality as lifestyle choice. The chld may well come to a point where they wonder why it is not accepted by certain minorities.
I will read the passage you suggest, but I find I do not hold out much hope that I will be swayed in my opinion, as I suspect you will not be if, whether or not you consider the law.
We shall, I fear, agree to disagree - which is the very crux of society.
We cannot change each other, and nor would I want to, because it would be hypocrisy in light of my comments on tolerance as specified above.
Post a Comment
<< Home