Daughter Raised by Two Moms Speaks Out

[JoshJoseph2]

Of course, and it begins with biology 101. Obviously the female reproductive system is designed for sex and sexual procreation and the digestive system is not designed for it. Obviously. But here you are acting like a complete ignoramus making the false assertion that the opposite is true. You're wrong. It is not.

And, of course, misusing the end of the digestive system for sex (something it was never designed to accommodate) carries the greatest sexual risk for disease transmission. There's not much pleasure in getting AIDs.

Read the CDC Fact Sheet on the topic Einstein. Note the following:

"Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV."

But, because homosexual behavior is immoral there are other consequences beyond a heightened risk for contracting serious sexually transmitted disease and other potentially deadly maladies such as increased risks for cancer.

There are very real spiritual consequences to engaging in serious sinful behaviors such as homosexuality that result in demonic oppression and personality changes. Over time, people who immerse themselves in such serious sexual immorality can even become hardened to the point of reprobation.

Your ignorance is obvious. You should remedy it by educating yourself instead of coming on Christian forums and making patently false assertions about a topic you know almost nothing about.

Again. You assert that the body was designed for a specific purpose. In my opinion the body wasn't designed at all.
Therefore organs have no purpose. They are simply used by humans to be used for whichever purpose they like and for the most part they will be moral in doing so. I see no reason why using the anus is somehow immoral as the anus can be used for different reasons. Just like the mouth can be used for speaking and eating so can the anus be used for other purposes then going to the bathroom. Of course their is risks to anal sex. All sex has its risks but that dosen't mean we should throw all anal sex into the "its wrong" category.

Not sure why you're bringing "demons" into a discussion on human anatomy, I must have missed that science class.

 

[Sirk]

Pedophilia is natural as is murder and any other of the behaviors you listed. Natural doesn't always = morally correct. If you can tell me reasons why you believe homosexuality is morally wrong outside of "God said so" then ill gladly listen.

Pedophilia is natural? Thats pretty twisted man.

 

[Jeff_56]

roman rcc heretic doctrine says that - 'agree to disagree'.

yahweh just says you're wrong. no agreement with heresy. he always condemns heresy.

Now THAT I can respect, although I don't necessarily agree with everything you say either.
As long as we can agree to disagree.

 

[maxwel]

Well, at least Josh is being honest now and telling us what he thinks.

When we first started out, his profile said he was a Christian.
Apparently he has corrected that.

 

[JoshJoseph2]

You're taking a simplistic view of the human organism and making a lot of false assertions with respect to it.

Without question, that anatomy was never designed for any other purpose than to function as part of the digestive system.

You are making a patently false assertion to state the anus was designed for sexual intercourse. It's completely untrue as any biology professor will be happy to explain to you.

In fact, the type of tissue in the anal area simply is not designed for homosexual activity while vaginal tissue is designed for intercourse. In addition to the greatest potential for sexual disease transmission, there are long term effects. People suffer adverse effects like rectal prolapse, perforation which can go septic, etc...

And I'm going to explain to you at this time that Christian Chat is not a forum for you to promote sexual immorality (including homosexuality) on and you're going to get banned if you continue doing so.

Again, I don't believe the human body was designed for any purpose. I simply believe that the body is used for many different purposes and I don't see how being gay is morally wrong. Even if you didn't want to have anal sex because of safety issues there are other ways to have gay sex. We are just talking about one type of gay sex ignoring lesbians and those other ways gay men have sex.

 

[JoshJoseph2]

Pedophilia is natural? Thats pretty twisted man.

Just because something is natural, dosen't mean it is morally correct. Murder is natural that doesn't mean its morally correct.

 

[Sirk]

Just because something is natural, dosen't mean it is morally correct. Murder is natural that doesn't mean its morally correct.

Okay so if homosexuality is natural that doesn't make it morally correct?

 

[JoshJoseph2]

Okay so if homosexuality is natural that doesn't make it morally correct?

Something being natural or not natural has nothing to do it being morally correct or incorrect.

 

[Sirk]

Something being natural or not natural has nothing to do it being morally correct or incorrect.

ummmmm....okay. Whatever you say.

 

[Percepi]

It may not be exclusive to same-sex marriage and parenting, but in the actual essay -- linked in the OP's linked article -- she clearly lays out the crux of the issue created by not having her father in her life:

Exactly, her father wasn't in her life. It doesn't matter if her mother married another woman, another man, or remained single. No matter what, the problem was that the woman's own father wasn't in her life. So it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

This isn't an example of how harmful gay marriages are. It's how harmful divorces are.

Irrelevant to Heather's essay, and the concern she has for children forced to live with same-sex partners.

So children should be forced to live with heterosexual parents?

When you come up with reasons as to why gay marriages are harmful, do you ever stop and think, "I wonder what happens if I apply this logic to heterosexual relationships?" If you did, you would see the futility and hypocrisy in your own argument.

Incorrect. If you read her original essay, in full, she acknowledges that. But as you can see from the above excerpt, it creates special problems that only same-sex partnerships can cause the partners' children.

Her original quote:

I’m not saying that you can’t be good parents. You can. I had one of the best. I’m also not saying that being raised by straight parents means everything will turn out okay. We know there are so many different ways that the family unit can break down and cause kids to suffer: divorce, abandonment, infidelity, abuse, death, etc. But by and large, the best and most successful family structure is one in which kids are being raised by both their mother and father.

The problem she faced is that her own father abandoned her. This is why she wanted a father. Outlawing gay marriage wouldn't have magically granted her a father - so her being against gay marriage doesn't solve her problem at all. This means she's wasting her time with a non-sequitur argument against gay marriage for something that doesn't have to do with gay marriage.

The thing people like you have a hard time grasping is the fact that the reason she wanted a father figure is because she obviously has abandonment issues. Guess what, people who grow attached to their pets often feel empty after their pets die - so they fill the void with another pet. Not all children of gay parents are going to have abandonment issues.

But what about the children of gay parents who do have abandonment issues? Well, we have to ask, how is banning gay marriage going to solve this issue? Answer, it isn't.

Wrong. Obviously she was raised to believe she didn't need a dad, or a man. She has now categorically rejected that concept, and is calling on the LGBT community to acknowledge the special problems their selfish sin foists on their children.

Even if a different father figure would have helped her cope with her issues, it all stems down to the fact that her own father left her. Her problems stemmed from her father leaving her. As for the women talking about how they don't need a man - well they're lesbians, so obviously they don't need a man. Duh. Granted, I'm sure she was exposed to some toxic misandry, which is a different issue.

You need to step back and understand what she is actually saying instead of leaping to erroneous conclusions based on an incomplete reading of what she had to say.

You need to recognize non-sequiturs. That's all this woman has made. She keeps talking about how gay marriage is wrong because kids need a mom and a dad. What does she use to support this argument? A story about how she wanted a father and didn't have one. But she didn't grow up with two mothers from the very start, he father abandoned her. She wanted a father because she lost her own. She doesn't realize that without gay marriage, SHE WOULD HAVE STILL REMAINED FATHERLESS. This woman isn't very good when it comes to critical thinking.

 

[VioletReigns]

Just because something is natural, dosen't mean it is morally correct. Murder is natural that doesn't mean its morally correct.

No, murder is not natural. Behaving like a brute beast, exhibiting no self-control and having no regard for human life is NOT natural. It is like an animal reacting on instinct.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Philosophers, sociologists, scientists, etc... assert that moral principles governing human behavior can be recognized independently of special revelation (e.g. scripture or as you put it in your ignorance "God said so"). They call this "normative morality."

Furthermore, they state that the basic principles of natural law are knowable by all people and thus can be said to be “written on the heart” as scripture or "God said so" states. This is done through correspondence. Natural law links morality to the “natures” things possess and the purposes of those natures. This, of course, is much better explained in theism (the "God said so" you reject in your ignorance) as literal laws are promulgated by God.

In fact, the discipline that attempts to gain knowledge of God apart from any special revelation (e.g. scripture or "God said so") is called natural theology. Natural theologians (not to be confused with naturalists or naturalism which comports with materialism) have typically inferred God’s existence through arguments such as the cosmological and teleological arguments as well as by reflecting on generic human experience.

On a purely naturalist (atheistic) level, homosexuality can be considered immoral per a non-theistic definition for natural law because it is a negative deviation from procreating the human organism within the structure that nature intended (with or without invoking general evolutionary theory).

But here you are stating that negative deviations from the normal biological order for the human genome are the normal order despite already being disproved by the world's great scientists (both atheists and non-atheists both evolutionists and creationists), philosophers, and theologians whom you obviously live your life in complete ignorance of.

Pedophilia is natural as is murder and any other of the behaviors you listed. Natural doesn't always = morally correct. If you can tell me reasons why you believe homosexuality is morally wrong outside of "God said so" then ill gladly listen.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You believe something that isn't true. In fact your worldview is based on fallacy rooted in abysmal ignorance, material deception, but also your love of immorality (as you stated in previous posts).

And no we weren't just talking about a single sexual behavior. Read through my posts. It's ALL a negative deviation from normative morality and it's ALL a negative deviation from God's morality. ALL of your assertions have been false. ALL of them. You've never been right. But you have been refuted.

All that's left is for you to continue repeating your false assertions and behaving like a complete ignoramus who never cracked a scholarly book in his life which, it's obvious you haven't.

Again, I don't believe the human body was designed for any purpose. I simply believe that the body is used for many different purposes and I don't see how being gay is morally wrong. Even if you didn't want to have anal sex because of safety issues there are other ways to have gay sex. We are just talking about one type of gay sex ignoring lesbians and those other ways gay men have sex.

 

[JoshJoseph2]

No, murder is not natural. Behaving like a brute beast, exhibiting no self-control and having no regard for human life is NOT natural. It is like an animal reacting on instinct.

The fact that the taking of ones life happens in nature proves that it is natural. Again, just because something is natural does not mean it is right. Every thing that happens on this earth is natural.

 

[JoshJoseph2]

On a purely naturalist (atheistic) level, homosexuality can be considered immoral per a non-theistic definition for natural law because it is a negative deviation from procreating the human organism within the structure that nature intended (with or without invoking general evolutionary theory).

But here you are stating that negative deviations from the normal biological order for the human genome are the normal order despite already being disproved by the world's great scientists (both atheists and non-atheists both evolutionists and creationists), philosophers, and theologians whom you obviously live your life in complete ignorance of.

Nature does not have a will. It does not have a goal. It simply "is". When you say things are the "normal order" you immediately are wrong. There is no norm. Nature has and will continue to be altered.

If you take the bible out of it, you simply cannot find a foundation to say homosexuality is wrong outside of a hypothetical scenario that currently does not exist. (i.e the worlds population is dwindling)

Argue from authority all you want but I guarantee you won't find many people who are in the scientific field or identify themselves as atheist say that homosexuality is wrong. Which is what this whole talk is about.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Pedophilia is natural as is murder and any other of the behaviors you listed. Natural doesn't always = morally correct. If you can tell me reasons why you believe homosexuality is morally wrong outside of "God said so" then ill gladly listen.

homosexuality is wrong because a MAN and a WOMAN are meant to be together, NOT TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN TOGETHER. it's un-natural. A man is meant to have sex with a woman, NOT another man. Same goes for women. Homosexuality, pedophilia, whatever, is a result of a sinful world, but it still goes against how God ordained things to be and GOD is the supreme lawmaker..

 

[Agricola]

Just because something is natural, dosen't mean it is morally correct. Murder is natural that doesn't mean its morally correct.

Morally correct is only a state of conditioning by society. Many things we take as "morally correct" were not so 100 years ago, such as homosexuality, that is why we sent homosexuals to prison if they got up to anything in public, it was morally unaceptable.

It was also morally acceptable in certain cultures and periods in time to place a higher value on animals than humans, if your child is going to drown or your goat, you save the goat and let the child drown, you can always produce another child for free and that child would go to heaven, that was morally acceptable.

The Bible tells us very clearly about what God considers "moral", or in other words how God wants us to beahve and live and what we should and should not do. Homosexual activity is not what God intended for us end of story, no ifs and buts, Homosexuality is WRONG.

However vast majority of humans have given up on God and think they know better than God, rewriting the rules and continually revising the social interactions and morals of the time, the liberal militants have got their way and now those rules are being re-written to make homosexuality acceptable.

I have nothing against homosexuals as people, as far as I am concerned non-believers can get up to what they like, if some man wants to engage in sexual activity with another man, then that is his right, its not against the law any more, but it still does not make it right to God.

 

[yaright]

I agree, and I want to make clear here I'm not responding negatively at all. But sometimes it isn't possible.

With my kids, initially it was me who was out of their lives. I struggled with PTSD, addiction, unfaithfulness, and a host of other sins in my previous marriage. But I came to Christ in 1993, after my ex divorced me for my behavior. What happened next is nothing short of ironic, if not outright bizarre.

She had her own addictions problems that I never knew about. She met a supposedly ex-felon on federal parole for meth manufacture, and started dating him over the next couple years. One Friday I came over to her house to pick up the kids for my weekend, and rang the doorbell. My eight-year-old son came to the door. I asked where his mom was, and he didn't know. She hadn't been home since the night before. He'd gotten himself and his sister up for school, fed them breakfast -- cold cereal, but it was better than nothing -- and got them on the bus. They were scared, but trying to cope.

I told them to pack some extra things in their bags and took them to my house. She didn't show up at her house all weekend. Or into the following week. I filed for temporary custody, with notice of intent to acquire custodial parental rights. In the next six months, she failed to show up or had her lawyer postpone hearings on the custodial rights petition more than a dozen times. Finally, the judge got fed up with her.

Now, while it's controversial to do so, I'm going to ask -- If it had been me abandoning the kids and her seeking custodial rights, does anyone think it would have taken six months for the judge to "get fed up with" me, if the circumstances were the same, just reversed?

I've no sympathy for a parent of either gender acting in the way she did. But I've been criticized for not "making sure" their mom was involved in their lives while I raised them by myself and put them through college -- admittedly a task made easier by my son's Division I soccer scholarship.

Nonetheless, It wasn't up to me to "make sure" of anything regarding her. I didn't shut her out, she shut herself out. She made her choice. We made ours.

Sometimes, that's just the way it is.

You seem to be missing something in your witness. How is it that you point at the bad behavior of your x wife and seemed to have misplaced your own bad behavior? Even to this day, if you conduct yourself like this, talking bad about the woman who bore your children, then it might also be said their dad is still awol no matter how much good you believe you are doing. You put it out there and you got my attention.

 

[p_rehbein]

The fact that the taking of ones life happens in nature proves that it is natural. Again, just because something is natural does not mean it is right. Every thing that happens on this earth is natural.

Wrong, both Biblically and earthly

 

[p_rehbein]

Just because something is natural, dosen't mean it is morally correct. Murder is natural that doesn't mean its morally correct.

Ahh, should have read your Profile Page first.....................see you are NOT a Christian. That explains the quoted comment. I can see how unbelievers would consider murder to be "natural."

Doesn't make it so, but I can see how unbelievers would think it so,